[Type text]

Debate: Direct democracy

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[Edit]

What are the pros and cons of direct democracy?

One con of direct democracy is that the people have to vote on EVERY issue, which would take time away from
your day.

[Edit]

Background and context

Direct democracy is the term used to describe particular forms of voting within any democratic system. The term
direct democracy is commonly used to refer to three distinct types of vote: 1. referendums, which are votes on a
specific single issue or piece of legislation (instead of a party or candidate);

2. citizen initiatives, whereby citizens can propose new legislation or constitutional amendments by gathering
enough signatures in a petition to force a vote on the proposal; and recalls, under which citizens can force a vote
on whether to oust an incumbent elected official by collecting enough signatures in a petition.

The common characteristic of these mechanisms is that they place greater power in the hands of voters, as
opposed to elected representatives. Direct democracy is, therefore, frequently seen as conflicting with
representative democracy, in which voters elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. By contrast,
[Type text]

under direct democracy, voters can themselves make decisions about specific policies or issues.[1]

The main questions framing this long-standing debate include: Do citizens make good laws? Are they informed
enough and capable of understanding the nuances of policies, or are representatives better at doing this? Does
representative government produce reprsentative leaders that make representative laws, or is direct democracy
better at this? This, and many other questions frame the overarching question and debate: Is direct democracy
beneficial to democratic government?

Democracy is a form of government in which people are governed by their own elected representatives.
It is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. In this system of government, it is the people
who are supreme and sovereign. They control the government. They are free to elect a government of their own
choice. Freedom of choice is the core of democracy.

Democracy existed in ancient Greek and Roman republics but with little success. It had very little scope in
ancient India. Democracy entered its golden stage in he twentieth century. Many countries in the world today
follow the democratic form of government. Democracy depends on the following conditions (i) co-existence of
ideas and of parties; (ii) the right to free discussion; (iii) universal adult suffrage; and (iv) periodic elections.

Indian is the largest democracy in the world. The Constitution of Indian was enforced on 26 January, 1950. It
ushered in the age pf democracy. India became a democratic republic infused with the spirit of justice, liberty,
equality and fraternity. The Preamble, the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Rights
reflect the Indian ideology as well as the caste, creed, religion, property, or sex have the right to cast their vote.
After and election, the majority party or coalition forms the government and its leader become the Prime
Minister.

Political parties are the vehicles of ideas. Parties act as the bridge between social thought and political decision
in democracy. The Indian politics system is a multiparty system. However, gradually politics has become a
game of opportunism and corruption. Most political parties are only interested in coming to power. Every party
adopts different caste politics. Some try to influence the people thought caste politics. Some try to raise the
religious sentiments of the people. The Indian ideology today is replaced by caste and religion.

We enjoy every right in theory, but not in practice. real democracy will come into being only when the masses
are awakened and take part in the economic and political life of the country. There is inequality in every sphere-
social, economic and political. Illiteracy is the main cause of inequality. The illiterate masses get easily lured by
money during such an event. Also some of our legislators have criminal records against them. The people who
make the laws themselves break them.

Even after more than sixty years of Independence, one forth of the population today goes to bed with an empty
stomach, live below the poverty line without access to safe and clean drinking water, sanitation or proper health
[Type text]

facilities. Governments have come and gone, politics have been framed and implemented, crores of rupees have
been spent, yet many people are still struggling for existence.

Casteism today is more pronounced that it even was. Untouchability remains abolished only in theory with
frequent newspapers reports of Dalits being denied entry to temples or other public places. Violence has been
taken a serious turn in country, Bandhs, strikes and terrorist activities have become a common affair. Every
sphere of national life is corrupted. Our democracy is capitalistic. Here, the rich exploit the poor who have no
voice or share in the democratic structure. For a successful democracy, all these need to be checked.

But India, as a democratic country, has progressed in many aspects. It has archived self-sufficiency in food
grains as a result of the green revolution. People vote for change whenever a government fails to come up to the
expectations of the people. India has been a successful democratic country only because the people are law-
abiding, self-disciplined and have the sense of social and moral responsibilities.

For a democracy to be fully successful, the electorate should be literate and politically conscious. They should
be fully aware of their rights and privileges. The illiterate masses of India should be given education so that they
can sensibly vote for the right leaders. The U.S.A, Britain, Germany and Japan are successful democratic
countries and gave progressed in every sphere because the masses are literate.

There should be quality in every sphere of life. The politicians should also respect the true sprit of democracy.
They should refrain from corruption caste and communal politics. The citizens should elect leaders with good
moral values and integrity. People should be guided to choose their representatives. They should not be
influenced by anyone in this respect. Individuals should learn tolerance and compromise and understand that
freedom in not unbridled but dependent on not harming another individual's well being.

Democracy demands from the common man a certain level of ability and character, like rational conducts, an
intelligent understanding of public affair, independed justice and unselfish devotion to public interest. People
should not allow communalism, separatism, casteism, terrorism, etc to raise their heads. They are a threat to
democracy. The government, the NGOs and the people together should work collectively for the economic
development of the nation. Changes should come through peaceful, democratic and constitutional means. The
talented youth of today should be politically educated so that they can become effective leaders of tomorrow.

t is on record that we had been under rajas, maharajas, monarchs and then under the imperialists and we took centuries
to get freedom from all these people who were never interested in the welfare of the people of their country. They had
been dividing us, they had been trying to reduce us to poverty, they had been trying to see that we should be weak and
always having one thing in our mind that we should get two time meals and live on and that life they wanted in us only
to ensure that we are at their service. And when we started this war of independence, even then the people who were
leading us were ensuring us that after getting independence, we shall establish here in India ‘ Ram rajaya’ means the
rule which was available during the time of Shri Ram Chandraji. The people who were pronouncing this ‘Ram rajaya’
here in India were not explaining us the definition of ‘Ram rajaya’ and thus the false slogan system had been introduced
at that very stage which had been adopted and followed by all those who wanted to reach the seats of power.
It is on record that we got independence on 15th August, 1047 and just on getting this independence, we started
working on the Constitution and it is on record that we collected all good things from all the Constitutions available at
[Type text]

that time and we also took some points as per Indians situations and framed the Constitution which could be said as the
longest and most comprehensive Constitution in the world. We adopted this Constitution on 26th January, 1950 and
since then our leaders have started pronouncing that we are one of the largest democracy in the world and we are also
pronouncing that we could maintain this democracy in spite of all hurdles.
The democracy which we adopted, as per paper transactions, it is government of the people, by the people and for the
people, but if we go deep, we shall note that it is not government of the people. A few person who were available on the
political scene took over the charge from the British government and then they adopted all those methods to govern
which were adopted by the outgoing imperialists. This groups which took over the charge were not representing the
people of India and therefore, they cannot say that they established government of the people. They gave one right to
the people of India and that right was right to vote and after each span of five years, people were called to caste votes
and then go back to suffer for another term of five years or more. Since the people who were elected were not
belonging to them, they never worked for the welfare of the people. They had been establishing here family rule which
was an old legacy. They established here in India party dictatorship and during this period we also noted that there were
people who established here in India individual autocracy. Such types of governments cannot be called government of
the people, because the people who were occupying seats of powers were not from the people of India.
We have noted that here in India we could not establish government by the people, because the politicians here in India
were from not from the people of India. They were the people who took over the seats of power from the imperialists.
This had been a separate class. The politicians who remained in the field were rich themselves or they were nominees of
the rich and powerful and therefore, the governments which were established here in India had been representatives of
the people who were rich and powerful and they had been working under their control and they had been working for
the welfare of the rich and the powerful and all had been at the cost of the common people who had been casting votes
and with whose votes these people had been occupying the seats of power.
And no one can say that the governments which had been established here in India had been governments for the
people. Had it been so, the problems of the people of India which had been taking birth during the times of slavery could
have been solved. But all the problems which took birth during the slavery time are still existing and some of these
problems have turned complex. Most of the people are illiterate, unemployed, poor, houseless, living in huts or in mud
houses. Some could be found lying on foot paths. The beggars are on higher side. The people are weak because they are
not getting proper diet and they are not in a position to get proper treatment when they are ill. They are not in a
position to send their wards to schools, colleges and to the training institutions and that is the reason most of the youths
are untrained and are not fit for a job. All these problems have become complicated and even the government and its
people have started telling us that such problems are available even in those countries which call themselves as
advanced countries. This is not a suitable answer, but we, the people of India are getting this reply.
In a democracy, the people of the country are the real masters of the country and all those who are elected or
appointed to carry on administration are called public servants. Such designations have been recognized in India too, but
when we go deep, the things are otherwise. All the people who are elected or appointed to carry on administration have
turned masters and all the people who are outside the government are slaves and they are being treated as slaves. If
they want to meat a public servant they are not allowed to see him and if at all he is allowed to come in, he is not
properly seated and he is asked to stand with folded hands and pray for mercy. If we read all the applications, all the
petitions and other correspondence initiated from the public side, those shall make it clear that here in India, the people
are still slaves and they are asked to write such applications and petitions which must show that the application is
coming from a slave and the master shall decide its fate only when the master so desires. The people shall have to wait
for the reply or for the decision for years together.
We have seen that instead of enriching the masters, these public servants have become more rich and powerful and
now it seems that this ruling class has established themselves separately from the general public and they are taken this
[Type text]

line as a profession, trade, calling and employment. They are investing money and when they get power, they mis-utilize
this power and through scams, scandals, muddles, bribes, corruption, commissions and other sources, they are
collecting money and none is catching them. Even when the oppositions come in power, they just harass the people and
they have got no intention in their mind that the guilty should be punished. All this is done just to put dust in eyes of the
people and mis-direct their attention. The guilty are not punished, because the people in power know that tomorrow
they too shall be be in the docks and they too could be sent to jails. So all they play, these are just friendly matches and
therefore, the people of India must understand these tactics of the people in politics in India.
We are noting that people of India are just subjects and they are not allowed to enter this politics in India. This field has
been earmarked for the rich and the powerful and therefore, the people of the world who call this country a democracy
are not aware of the facts which are available here in India. Then they shall see the real situations, only then they are
allowed to form an opinion. The people of India could define this set up as a government of the rich, for the rich and by
the rich.
The people of India shall have to conduct an introspection and they should do this without any further loss of time,
because they have already suffered for six decades waiting that they shall be allowed to live in a real democracy where
they shall be really the masters of the country. If the present sets of people in politics are allowed to continue, they
would not allow the concept of democracy to come in. They shall stop the same. Therefore, the people of India must
start another war of independence and they must see that they get their own nominees in the government. They must
ask all the political parties to give us their nominees for seats of power and the people should be allowed to elect
ministers directly and these people should not be appointed by the Prime Minister and by the Chief Ministers. If we
introduce this ‘shadow cabinet system’ in India, the people shall be elected competent people as ministers and they
shall be getting better governments. For reducing the number of political parties, we should consider the case of all
these state level legislative assemblies, and if we find that there is nothing to legislate at these state level institutions,
we should abolish these state level legislative assemblies. We should try to establish only two political parties here so
that the voters could be at ease while casting their votes. We should see that only those should be allowed to come
forward who have got clean record and all those who are with dirty record should not be allowed to seek elections and
all should have got clean chit from the administration at least one year in advance. If these measures are adopted, we
shall be coming forward and there are chances that we shall be joining the communities of nations which have got
democracy. The present situations are not ripe and we should not call these situations as a democracy. The conditions
are not matching the definition of democracy which has been accepted in all the books of political science.
--------------

God and people of India ?

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,
Formerly Employment Officer P.E.S. ll
E.Mail. dalipsinghwassan @ Yahoo Co. In.
If we go deep and trace the history of God, we shall come to the conclusion that God took His birth in India. The people
of India started talking about God through Vedas, through Shastras, through Simritis, theough Puranas and the like. The
people of India started calling God in different names. They were the people who told the world at large that God is the
father and parent of us all. They told the world that God sends us on this earth and also fixes the date when we are to go
back. They pronounced that God writes down the luck of this man and he has to suffer to enjoy as per this direction.
They told the world at large that there is Hell and there is Heaven and all those who had been doing bad deeds shall go
to Hell and all those who had been doing good works in life shall enjoy in Heaven. They established the concept of
‘Dharam Raj’ where accounts of us all shall be reexamined once again and as per those records our final fate shall be
decided. The word ‘Dharama’ had been created by the people of India and they defined ‘Dharma’ as good conduct. They
[Type text]

pronounced that only those are religious people who are not committing sins, crimes and misconducts and they said
that God is Omnipresent, and we are not in a position to hide anything from God.
We can trace history and we can come to the conclusion that thousands of Rishis, Munis, Bhagatas, Avtars, Devis had
been sitting in penance for years together and they had been waiting for lasting peace. It is on record that they had been
creating and establishing religious books, methods of worshiping God and also they had been establishing religious
places. The number of all these items is son the higher side.
The people of India had been living in peace and there was only one religion. But in due course people of other religions
started coming to this country and it is son record that some of them had been occupying this country and started living
in this country. We have seen in history that these invaders had been demolishing religious places of Hindus and they
had been establishing religious places of their own religions and it is also on record that there had been conversions
either through consent or through force and there had been killings on this account. The people here had been facing all
types of difficulties because of presence of different religions on this side. And because of these differences, we had to
face the partition of 1947 in which lakhs of our people were killed and crores of people had to migrate to unknown
places. Such type of religious war had never been noticed in history nor there had been such a big upheaval in the world
history.
Because of these two major religions, Hindu and Muslims, there had been no peace even after partition of 1947. The
people are fighting even today and in name of Kashmir, Pakistan had been invading India directly and now indirectly. We
have seen Khalistan movement in Punjab in which thousands of our own people had been killed by our own hands and
we have seen that one community ‘Sikhs’ had to suffer degradation. All this happened because Pakistan instigated the
Sikhs for the establishment of Khalistan. Bangladesh had been established and Pakistan still believes that this new
country had been established only because that the people of India wanted it and therefore, Pakistan feels that
somehow this Kashmir which is in possession of India must go out of India and join Pakistan.
Though the people of India gave birth to religion and God, but whether they could become religious people, this is a
question which is still unanswered. The above explained history does not show that the people of India re religious
people. They can kill others in name of religion though their religion never taught them to kill others especially innocent
people. We are a divided nation. The imperialists had been ruling over us by adopting and following the policy of ‘divide
and rule’ and that policy is still alive in spite of the fact that we have adopted the policy of secularism and tolerance. We
are still divided on the basis of religions, castes and even on sub caste system. A large number of our people have been
declared as ‘Dalits’ and the main classes are remaining apart from these classes. The socalled upper classes do not allow
their wards to enter into matrimonial alliance with these Dalits. Even political parties are not in a position to give ticket
to a person who does not belong to the majority in the area. In Muslim area they shall give ticket to a Muslim and in
Hindu area they shall give ticket to Hindus.
We have noted that people of each religion are collecting at one platform and that is the reason, we should note that
even colonies are meant for different religions and people of minorities often sell their houses and shall go to the
colonies of their own religious people. They have established different schools, colleges and training institutions and we
can judge from the name of the institution that it belongs to a particular religion. Our clothes, our hair-cuts and our way
of saluting each other shall tell us to which religion we belong. Hindus shall try to speak Hindi, Muslims shall try to speak
Urdu and the Sikhs shall try to speak Punjabi.
So the ultimate role of religions had not been good in India. The people could become religious people, is a question
which could be answered, but whether they could adopt secularism, is a question, which is difficult to answer. We say
that we are a nation, but all these divisions and sub divisions would establish it well that we shall take another century
to become a nation. All the communities in India are demanding reservations in the Parliament, in services and in the
state legislative assemblies. They have started counting themselves and they are trying to increase their strength
because here in India only majorities shall be preferred. Our religions could not set us right because all types of crimes,
[Type text]

sins and misconducts are being committed by us and jail survey shall establish that we are could not rise as per
directions of our religions. We are not religious people in the right sense, though we are religious people outwardly.
( Dalip Singh Wasan) Advocate.

Offering cash and kind at religious places

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,

Formerly Employment Officer P.E.S. ll
E.Mail. dalipsinghwassan @ Yahoo Co. In.

It is on record that this man had been creating and establishing different religions at different times and at different
places and because of science and technology, the people have near to each other. And because of these mingling they
had to decide the methods through which they could maintain peace amongst all. And because of these mingling, they
could invent two new concepts of secularism and toleration and they also came out with a concept of no discrimination
with others only on the basis of religions, castes, colours and creed. But in spite of all these concepts, this man could not
maintain peace and people are at war with each other.
There had four or five religions in the beginning, but in due course so many people took up the religion as a base and
they started creating and establishing so many sub religions i.e. religions in religions. The people who occupied the seats
of power on these sub units started explaining the main contexts of all the religions and in fact they started to establish
a common religion, which they could not. Actually whatever they had been pronouncing from these stages were bit
sincere efforts on their parts. They had been on these stages just to earn their livelihood and in due course, they noticed
that they could collect thousands of people around them and they started collecting cash and kind which had more than
their demands. So they started living like lords and in secrecy some of them had been indulging in all types of sins,
crimes and misconducts. Money would never allow a person to live peacefully and money so collected be utilized for
religious purposes. They started free kitchens which are most attractive in India and in due course the gatherings had
been increasing.
The people who had been collecting around these people running sub religious units could become religious people or
not, it is a question which we should not try to answer, but these gatherings could bring disturbances in the areas. The
people running these sub religious institutions started establishing that they are the best and the most religious persons
and for guarding the cash and kind and also their own bodies, they are deploying armed people around them. When
such persons are having armed people around them remained religious people. It is a question which shall demand a
correct answer.
People like one available in India are mostly illiterate, poor and traditional and therefore, they want guidance from
religious people. Since these people who are running these sub units are most wise people and they know the
psychology of the people. They are not giving them any advice, but they are just exploiting their ignorance. They had
been successful because in India, we shall be facing difficulties in collecting correct information. The money collected at
these sub religious places had been utilized for a right cause, is a question, which would never be answered because
everyone of us would not like to comment adversely at a religious place because such type of utterances could open the
doors of Hell for us.
People of all shades are turning wiser and therefore, they are having an introspection. But still they are going to these
sub stations because they believe that the person who is holding the charge is vested with some magical powers and he
shall be able to treat them and shall bring our demands before God and shall recommend for the fulfillment of our
demands. Some person holding the charge of these sub units have also started giving treatment and they are trying to
establish that they could treat a person who has been discharged from professional institutions. We have seen people
[Type text]

approaching these runners of these sub units for solving their family problems and sometime they approach in a
panchayat so that their matrimonial relations are restored.
Since money collections are on higher side, more and more people are collecting at these sub units and we have also
noted that more and more sub units are being established and in fact the real religious places are no more attracting the
devotees. The devotees have stopped visiting religious places situated at far of places and they have started visiting
these sub units. Even the state shall not be in a position to stop such sub units because the state cannot interfere into
the religious fields. If the people really want that all these religious sub units must close down, they should stop offering
cash and in kind at all these sub units and within days the people who are running these sub units shall run away and
would never come back. It clearly means that when the people are offering money and other articles at these sub units,
so these sub units are flourishing and if we stop these offerings, these sub units shall not run and the occupiers shall also
run away.
( Dalip Singh Wasan ) Advocate.

Let us establish our family life first ?

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.

We, the people of the world must be thankful to our elders who had been struggling for centuries and ultimately they
came forward and established this institution of marriage and with the establishment of this institution, this family
system was established and we could call this unit as our home. The people who could not marry, could not establish a
family and thus they failed to establish this home, sweet home for themselves. The people who have got no home, no
family and are unmarried, such people are not liked by the society around them and they consider such people
dangerous for them and for other members of their family. We can say that the people who have got no family are not
having a home are not complete part of the society around them.
So the people who are interested to become complete members of the society around them should have marriage and
they must keep this marriage alliance intact and should not break this matrimonial alliance. They may be cautious in
selecting a life partner and they may be having help from others, but once they come in such alliance, they must keep it
and continue in it till they are in this world. We have been told that marriages are arranged in Heaven and just
performed on this earth and therefore, we should believe in the fact that this marriage had been arranged in Heaven
and we both have been sent on this earth to celebrate this marriage and then live together.
We must try to understand the fate of those people who were not having marriage bonds and still they were having
children. Such people were not living in a family and most of the children were not having any information about their
fathers. What could have been the psychology of such persons who were having no information about their fathers.
How they lived in this life and how they completed this life, are the questions, which we fear, we are not in a position to
answer, but at least a child of today would not tolerate the fact that he does not have information about the name of his
father and because of this non-information with him, he would never like his or her mother too because she did
something wrong which is not pardonable. So each woman must know that she may not have a child till she is married
and if she has got some relations with a person before marriage, she must avoid to have sexual relations with the man,
because this man shall go free and she shall be sorry before the child till the last day of her life.
The people must be thankful to the people who established this marriage system in this world and therefore, they
should also make it sure that they do not cross matrimonial limits. Sex beyond this marriage bond should be prohibited.
All these prostitutes, dancing girls, keeps, call girls and cases of adultery are sins, crimes, or misconducts and therefore
the women, the men who are indulging in these items are criminals and should be caught and punished, as the case may
be because such actions are totally violations of the concept of marriage.
The people must be taught much about this married life, this family life and about this home life, because these are the
[Type text]

first units of societies and if these units are not functioning properly, we should not expect better societies in this world.
( Dalip Singh Wasan ) Advocate.

Indians are not progressive in nature.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.

It is on record that at one stage in history, we had been considered a ‘golden sparrow’ and it is also on record that
people from abroad had been hearing about our prosperity and they had been invading this country. They had been
looting the people of this country and when they turned the people of India poor, they started establishing their rule
here in India and ultimately they converted this country into a slave country and it is on record that we had been slaves
starting from 712A.D. to 1947 A.D.
And if we go further deep into the history of this country, we are the people who established ‘God’ and accepted for the
first time that we all the people of the world are sons and daughters of God and thus we all are members of one family.
We told the world that God is one and only one. We are the first to say that God writes luck and destiny of us all and we
have to live our life as per these directions. We have declared that there are about 84,00,000 lives on this earth and we
have to come back and complete this circle. We declared the seat of ‘Dharam Raj’ and told the world at large that when
one dies, he is produced before this ‘Dharam Raj’ and all accounts are read over once again and ultimate fate is decided
there. The people who had been doing good deeds get Heaven and the people who were not doing good deeds but
were committing crimes, sins and misconducts are sent to Hell. We declared that God should be remembered time and
again and we also established this prayer system If we have a look on literature side, we are the fore-runners in this field
and we have on our side Vedas, Upnishadas, Simrities, Puranas, Ramayana and Mahanbharata. We have Bhagwad Geeta
and Shri Guru Granth sahibji. It must be accepted that we are fore-runner in establishing religious places, places for
worship, religious books and we are also fore-runner in reciting these religious books. We have got our traditions and
therefore, we should say that we were an advanced country.
It seems that during the days of our slavery, we lost much. Our places of worship; had been demolished and the invaders
had been constructing their own religious places just to demoralize us. It is on record that the invaders had been
converting us forcibly and thus we had seen here partition of 1947 just on religious grounds.
This is our past record, but when we have a look on our present, it seems, we would not be in a position to claim all
these heights once again. We had certain dreams when we were fighting this war of independence, but after getting
independence, some people came forward and instead of giving us freedom, they occupied the seats of power and thus
there had been a change of rule and we cannot say it that on that date the people of India got independence. We have
noted that the people who are coming forward through our votes are not working as public servants, but they are
following the same principles of divide and rule and they had been beating us and looting us through one way or the
other and we can note that within this period of six decades, all those who were in the ruling class have turned rich and
the people who got the status of masters of the country have been reduced to poverty. This is a strange type of
democracy where masters are being reduced to poverty and public servants are growing rich.
We wanted a change, but unfortunately, we could not get a change neither if 1947 nor in 1950 and we remained slaves
and the ruling classes had been exploiting our position through scams, scandals, muddles, bribes, corruption, sale of
jobs, sale of licenses, sale of quotas, taking commissions. Under these circumstances, we, the people of India cannot say
that we shall be going ahead and it is on record that in spite of lapse of six decades, we are still illiterate, poor,
houseless, beggars, living in mud houses, lying on foot paths, wearing rags, getting no proper treatment when we are ill,
there is no social security and all those who are weak, handicapped, ill and old do not have any support when they are in
need of help. So we can say with authority that the people of India are always under stresses and therefore, we can read
sadness from their faces.
[Type text]

The people who had been occupying the seats of power had been giving us false slogans and those slogans were not
real, but simply issued for vote-catching and therefore, we had been electing people who never could become our
representatives. Therefore, they are not committed to serve us. So under these circumstances, the people of India have
started praying before God and are expecting some changes. But they could not understand that God helps those who
help themselves. We are not working to change our life and therefore, there are no chances that we shall change and
shall go ahead and compete with the world at large.
None is interested and that is the reason none is trying to tell our people that first of all they should be progressive in
nature and to attain further heights, they must have proper education, proper training, proper adjustment in life and
their income should be at such a stage that they are able to run their family administration well and are not dependants
upon others. These are the minimum requirements and none is interested in achieving these minimum requirements.
No signs are visible and that is the reason we could not solve any of our problems which we got as a legacy of our slavery
period. Who shall change the psychology of our people, is a question which shall need proper consideration and proper
answer.
( Dalip Singh Wasan ) Advocate.

The people of India must have an introspection ?

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.

It is on record that the people of India got their independence in 1947 and it is also on record that they prepared their
own Constitution and adopted the same in the year 1950 and since this date they are declaring themselves as the largest
democracy in the world.
The people of India know that there is no people’s government in India because the people who are elected or
appointed are not from the people side and therefore, they are never representing people. That is the reason, these
people are not serving the people nor they have got such a desire or wish in their hearth. They have spent money to
attain all these heights and therefore, they have got their own targets and they are busy to attain their own targets.
So the people of India must sit together and they must have an introspection. They have already wasted about six
decades, and the problems of the people are still there and all those problems have become complicated. Therefore,
they shall have to see whether they are electing and appointing competent, honest and sincere people and whether
they are the person who would be working as public servants. The people who are functioning like rulers should not be
put up at these positions because we have already crossed all these situations and now we are living in a democracy. We
shall have to see that there is a short list of political parties and if possible there should be only two or three political
parties in India. If need be and if we come to the conclusion that there is no need of continuing with all these state level
legislative assemblies, we should abolish all these institution and if do it we shall be saving crores of rupees and we shall
see that all religious and regional political parties shall also go. We should abolish all states and redraft our map in such a
way that all the states should become administrative units to be controlled by the centre. We shall have to see that all
natural resources are centralized and benefits of these natural resources should go and equally divided without any
discrimination. We shall have to make it sure that people of different religions and of different casts and people of
different economic groups live united and none is exploiting the position of others.
There had been something wrong with our administration and that is the reason, here in India people who are rich are
turning more rich and the people who are poor are being reduced to more and more poverty. In spite of all resources at
our command, here we find people are illiterate, poor, houseless, having mud houses or they are found lying on foot
paths. The people are found wearing rags imported from other countries. We find that a large number of people are
beggars and small children are being deployed to collect valuables from the garbage. We find that a large number of
people are not having hygienic conditions and therefore, they are ill and are not having proper treatment. Why all these
[Type text]

problems are there, when this is the same country which had been graded as ‘ a golden sparrow’ and it is on record that
people from abroad had been invading this country.
There is something wrong with us and that is the reason we are turning drug addicts, criminals, rioters and terrorists. All
these situations need thorough retrospection and we are wise people, therefore, we should take wise steps and see that
we come out of all these difficulties and weaknesses. We have already wasted about six decades and more wastage shall
not be advantageous for us. We need complete overhauling and this work should be taken in hand without any further
delay and if keep sleeping, the people from all the countries shall declare that the people of India could get a
government for which they were fit.
Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,
101-C Vikas Colony, Patiala-147003.

Kashmir would not allow India and Pakistan smooth progress ?

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.

Both India and Pakistan know that Kashmir had already been divided in between India and Pakistan and it has also been
accepted that Pakistan had not vacated the occupied area of Kashmir in spite of U.N.O. resolutions of 1947 and it is also
on record that India could not take this area back in spite of their pronouncements to this effect.
In spite of this permanent division of Kashmir, we, the people of India are demanding that Pakistan should vacate that
area and on the other hand Pakistan is demanding that the U.N.O. Resolutions be accepted and there should be
plebiscite in the whole of Kashmir state and the will of the people be accepted. Pakistan is harping on the term plebiscite
only because it knows that the Muslims are in majority in the state and there are possibilities that they may opt for
Pakistan and on the other hand India says that plebiscite is not possible because whole of Kashmir has become part of
India and under the Constitution of India there is no provision which allows such a plebiscite in a state. So the matters
are standing here, but since 1947 both India and Pakistan are not in a position to leave these demands.
It is on record that Pakistan tried through direct wars and since the long past it is following a proxy war against India. The
Khalistan movement in the state of Punjab was also a part of this proxy war and when Pakistan came to know that whole
of the Sikh Community does not want that Punjab should separate from India and become Khalistan, Pakistan
immediately left the Khalistan Movement and shifted to Kashmir where it could find a fertile land for its activities.
Pakistan could find out some people who have initiated a movement in Kashmir through which they are demanding that
the people of Kashmir should be given a right to exercise their will. This group is giving warm welcome to the terrorists
sent by Pakistan and we have noted that the terrorists coming from Pakistan side are getting all types of shelter,
protection, arms, ammunition, boarding and lodging, local information and then they are helped to hide themselves
after the operation. The terrorists so accommodated in Kashmir could turn Kashmir as their base and now they have
started operating in whole of India where they could get the same facilities and help which they could get in Kashmir.
We have seen that these terrorists could reach the Red Fort, important temples and even they reached our Parliament.
We are initiating talks on the subject of Kashmir, but we have noted that both the countries are not changing their basic
stands. India would never say that the occupied part of Kashmir shall belong to Pakistan nor the Pakistan government
shall agree that there should be no plebiscite in Kashmir and the part with India should remain part of India.
Under compelling circumstances we took part in the liberation of East Pakistan which has come up as Bangladesh,
Pakistan is not tolerating this division. It is in the mood of taking revenge from India and people of India know that
Pakistan is making all these exercises which shall prove futile. But Pakistan knows that its actions are bring loss to India.
If we calculate our losses in Khalistan Movement and in Kashmir problem, we shall come to the conclusion that the
losses are on the higher side than those losses which Pakistan suffered because of loss of its Eastern part. And if Pakistan
conducts an estimate, it too shall come to the conclusion that all its efforts have proved futile exercises.
[Type text]

During this period of six decades, history has played its own role and therefore, Kashmir stands divided into India and
Pakistan and both the countries should accept this decision of history. The people who are with Pakistan have become
Pakistani and the people who are living with India have become Bhartis. It shall not be in interest of India and Pakistan to
unite these two wings and then conduct a transfer because such unities are often dangerous for the country to which
such units are given.
Time has come when both India and Pakistan should sit together and they must accept the decision of history, then they
should stop all direct and indirect wars against each other and then they should sign a No-War-Pact operative for ever
and they both should start living in peace. All these direct and indirect wars had been futile exercises, and they must
learn a lesson from these wars. If they live in peace, they shall turn their countries as ‘golden sparrows’ once again
because both these countries are very rich. Both the countries have got mountains, rivers, fertile lands, minerals,
petroleum, coals, irons, jungles and all that what could the basics for planned development. They had been wasting their
time, their energy, their resources, their men, their peace on futile exercises and therefore, time has come when they
should sit down in peace.
The question put here should be given to the people of both the countries and there are hundred per cent chances that
the people of the both the countries shall recommend for this no war pact.
101-C Vikas Colony, Patiala-India-147003.

Concept of reservation in India.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.

When we were framing our Constitution, some one in the committee thought up about reservation. It was true that
there were some sections in our society which had been ignored for centuries together and they were not allowed to
prosper and make progress. It was on record that they were kept illiterate, untrained, unemployed and they were given
occasional work so that their income should remain always on the lower side and they were never able to make both
ends meet. That had been the reason these people were having no houses, no bath rooms, no latrines, no clothes to
wear on, no savings with them for the rainy seasons and it was on record that they were not allowed to mix with other
sections of the society and that had been the reason, these people were called un-touched.
It is not understood as to why the framers of our Constitution thought of reservation. They could have some other way
out and they could have tried to help these down trodden people. But they invented this method of reservation and
with this method they were not actually interested in bettering the condition of these people, but they were establishing
their own vote bank and they had been successful. If we try to investigate our achievements up-to-date, we shall come
to the conclusion that only some families had been getting the benefit of these reservations and most of the people for
whom this concept was established could not get any benefit out this system. The reservations had been concentrated
within some of the families and most of the people who are Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes
could not get any benefit out this system.
India is a developing country and these people were poor people and were forming the main working group. They could
have benefited provided some thing right had been done for them. But they could not get any benefit and the people
who were in politics had been exploiting the position of these socalled ‘Dalits’.
In due course some other categories also started demanding reservations for them and we had been giving additional
benefits to the Ex-servicemen, Physically Handicapped persons, Freedom fighters, Dependants of terrorists affected
families, Sportsmen and some jobs were earmarked for the dependants of those who die while in service and thus the
quota for general categories had been reduced to a very lower side and therefore, more and more categories are
coming forward and they are claiming that they too be included either in the categories of Scheduled Caste, scheduled
tribes, Backward Classes, in the minority categories of Sikhs, Muslims,. Christians or the like.
[Type text]

We have heard that in the state of Rajasthan in India, the Gurjar community has started demanding reservation and they
are demanding that their caste be categorized as Scheduled tribes. There had agitations and we have heard that abaout
fifteen people have been killed in police firing and some trains have to been stopped. If we continue with these
situations, a time is coming when the Sikhs, the Muslims, the Christians and the like shall also start demanding that their
communities too should be given reservation.
We have noted that the women are also demanding reservations and they want that at least half of the jobs, seats and
other situations should be earmarked for them because they have got an equal population in India. The Parliament is
already with the draft bill and the same shall be getting through and notified.
Time has come when we should have a look on this reservation policy and it should be banned or written off from all the
statutory books available in India. We may be having some other out way for helping these categories, but this
reservation system is not good. Time is coming when the people of India shall be divided into religions, castes, colours,
sex and they shall be demanding reservations on the basis of their strength in the country and one day they shall come
forward and shall demand that all the seats in the Parliament should be divided on the basis of religion and sex and since
the ‘Dalits’ are about 30 per cent they should get thirty per cent seats in the Parliament and in all the state level
legislative assemblies. Similarly women shall demand their own share. Sikhs, Muslims and the Christians shall also
demand their share and a time shall come when these categories shall start demanding that elections should be religion-
wise, caste-wise, category-wise and such a system shall virtually divide our country. The dreams of our becoming a
nation would never be achieved.
Therefore, time has come when this subject of reservation should be given an open debate and all the people of India
should participate in this debate. It should not be left to Parliament only because these politicians have already done
much losses to the nation. The had been following the same policy of the English people…Divide and rule, and that had
been the reason, we could not unite our people at one platform. There had been no internal peace in the country
because of these divisions and some people have turned terrorists and some have started taking part in riots and both
these people are killing our own people with our own hands. We have noticed that some people in India are helping the
terrorist coming from Pakistan side. These terrorists coming from the other side are given shelter, local information,
boarding and lodging, arms and ammunition and places where they could hide after the operation. Had such facilities
been not available to them, there was no chance that they could have reached Mumbai, Red Fort and the Parliament. At
present the terrorist from Pakistan have got their hiding places all over in India and therefore, our Prime Minister had to
declare that whole of India is within the danger zonr.
Therefore, the people of India must consider all these points and they must try to take steps through which they can
unite the country and they should disband all those steps which divide us. We should leave the path of the English
people and we should come forward with all such steps which should unite us into one nation. And the first step
towards these directions should be abolition of reservation system in India because it is not helping us.
( Dalip singh Wasan ) Advocate,

Woman in India.
Dalip Singh Wasan, advocate.

As far as woman in India is concerned, there were times when she had some prestige. We had been naming Seeta first
then we had been quoting name of Shri ram and similarly we had been quoting Radha first and then shri Krishna. But
with the passing of time, she had been forced to go down and she was not allowed to enter the house of her in laws
without adequate dowry and dowry items. We have been hearing that if the people in the house of her in laws take into
account the dowry items and they come to the conclusion that it was on the lower side, they could compel her to go
back to the house of her parents and bring more dowry or cash and if she fails, there are instances where she has been
[Type text]

thrown out, has been killed or such circumstances are created for her that she may commit suicide.
The state passed a law that in the properties and assets of the parents, the daughter has got equal rights with her
brothers and keeping in view this law, the people started killing their daughters. Some daughters have been killed before
they could take their birth. The state is considering such crimes very seriously, but still such killings are reported through
the news papers.
In some of the states in India women are in short supply and therefore, most of the men are remaining without having a
marriage. In the state of Punjab we find that only 850 women are there against population of 1000 men in the state and
that is the reason some crimes of rape and abduction are on the higher side. We have learnt that some youths of the
state of Punjab have started purchasing women from other states and are marrying those girls.
We have noted that now some women have started demanding equal rights with men and they have started asking for
share in the Parliament and in the state legislative assemblies. They are demanding reservation in jobs and also in local
bodies where people are elected to the chairs. They could get a law that none shall demand dowry, and if some deaths
are reported all the people in the house of their in laws are involved in these criminal cases and they are made to suffer.
But still we are receiving news of deaths and suicides.
Time has come when the state must come forward and tell the people that this dowry is not charity, but it is share of the
daughter in the properties of her parents where she had taken birth and it should be bifurcated and given to heart the
time of her marriage. She should be made real owner of all these shares and these shares should remain with her for at
least seven years and only then she should beat liberty to share these belongings with her husband and other members
of the family. Her parents should have say prior to completion of seven years. The state and wise people in the state
must come forward and must see that the belongings of the woman are kept safe for her. Such steps if taken in the right
direction, we shall be able to save the lives of women in India.
She has already realized that she has got equal rights and now she is vigilant about her rights and if the state starts
helping her, there are chances that her conditions shall improve and she would be having a happy life in this part of the
world.
( Dalip Singh Wasan ) Advicate, 101-C Vikas colony, Patiala-India-147003

Birth of sub religions in India.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,
101-C Vikas Colony, Patiala-India-147003.

We the people of India are the originators of most of the religions in India. It is on record that the number of Deras,
Matths and Asharams had been on the higher side in India. Different people had been establishing these units and it is
on record that they had been explaining the same concepts of oneness of God, His Omnipresence and His Omnipotence.
In all these units, the people sitting on the seats of power had been preaching that God is one, He is present
everywhere, He is supervising all our actions, He is the writer of destiny and luck, He is administering justice and all guilty
are being sent to Hell and all people who are doing good towards others are being retained in Heaven where they are
provided with all facilities of life and they are allowed to enjoy life after death. The people of India have also established
that the people who get Hell are sent on this earth time and again to suffer for the crimes, the sins and the misconduct
which they had committed in their life.
Much had been written about God in religious books available in India. But in spite of all these books, the people being
illiterate, were liking to listen what the saints say and therefore, it is on record that people had been gathering around
those who had started explaining the religious texts and in due course these units started earning money. Therefore, the
heads had been holding the seats of power till death and they had been designating their successors. So in due course
these units became so strong that they had been declaring that they are the most wise people and therefore, the people
[Type text]

must get religious knowledge from them.

To-day media is helping these units and they are approaching people in all walks of life and when the people listen to
them and they listen from the promoters, they start running to these units for blessings, for having treatment of their
diseases, for solving their problems and for wishing for the success of their wards and even marriages are settled by
these units. The religious books and religious places which had been utilized by these heads have already lost their
importance and it is on record that people have started approaching them directly and if they bow their heads before
religious books and at religious places, these are just formalities. That is the reason all important places, all importance
and all regard has been obtained by the people who are running all these deras, matths and asharams. Time is coming
when the people holding charge of these units shall be publishing their own granths and they shall be creating separate
sub religions in each area and those sub religions shall be named under the name of the originator or under the name
they would suggest.
And in due course this establishing deras, asharams and matths are becoming seats of earning money and therefore, it
has been established a beneficial business. People who are not getting any work are joining this line and within days
they are collecting people and then collecting money from them. Since the people of India are mostly illiterate and the
people who are literate, are not well educated are also coming to these deras, matths and asharams for having blessings
of the sants. Here the people do not believe in working hard and then having the success. They work less and believe in
prayer and these units are exploiting the position of the people. They are telling the devotees that they shall be getting
all what they want provided they carry out the instructions and directions given by the saints. Here most of us believe
that God shall come down and shall do the work for us and we do not believe in the old saying that ‘God helps those
who help themselves’ and that is the reason more and more people are collecting at the units and they are demanding
all the things through prayers and thus they waste much of their time, energy and money on these rehearsals.
It is not possible for government of India to ban all deras, asharams and matths, but the state can create separate units
for each religion. We have already got an enactment like Shromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Act and if we bring
all Gurdwars under this committee and no such institution should remain independent andin in the hand of some
individual person. No one should be allowed to establish a gurdwara except this SGPC. All institutions functioning should
be brought under SGPC. If such committees are created through enactments for all the religions, then these private
establishment shall be no more and the people shall be having such institutions as per need of the area and no one shall
be able to exploit the religious feelings of the people.
There is no way out and therefore, the state must come forward and save the religions where they are and these deras,
matths and asharams are coming out, this society shall be having further divisions and we shall never become a nation.
--------------------

We are nearing true democracy.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.

When we assess our war of independence, we come to the conclusion that we had been the greatest fighters and it is on
record that we could get independence from the imperialists. We forced them to leave our country and hand over the
charge of our country to us and they left the country peacefully and they were allowed to leave peacefully and we had
no attack on them. But they divided the country at the last moment and it is on record that this partition had been the
worst of its kind in the world. Thousands were killed and thousands were obliged to leave their native place and migrate
to unknown places. Therefore, we cannot say that this was a peaceful handing over and peaceful taking over. We could
not celebrate because of these killings and because of this uprooting.
In the first instance the people who took over the charge started administering this country on the same lines where the
imperialists had left it and they had a monopoly here. It is on record that they established here family rule, then party
[Type text]

dictatorship and then they kept us under an individual autocracy. All these elements were foreign to the concept of
democracy, but we had to bear it because we were having no knowledge and we were not having a lifestyle of living in a
democracy. The people who took over the charge were not having any interest in the people of this country and
therefore, we can say that we had been slaves as we had been under the rajas, maharajas, monarchs and then under the
imperialists.
But in due course we started learning the art of living in a democracy. I started with the new process and in due course
we abolished family rule, party dictatorship, individual autocracy and now we have entered in age of alliances. We have
started electing right people and in due course we shall be electing our own ministers. We know that the Prime Minister
and the Chief Ministers are not appointing competent people as ministers because they are working under their own
compulsions. We shall be compelling the state to give us shadow cabinets and we shall be having a right to elect our
ministers through our own votes and once this course is adopted, we shall be giving competent people as ministers.
One party rule is a thing of the past and in the near future, no single party shall be able to claim government. We know
that people in power had been misutilising their power and they had been collecting money through scams, scandals,
muddles, bribes, sale of jobs and having dalali and commissions. We are locating all such people and in due course we
shall be identifying all such properties and assets and there are chances that we shall be confiscating all such ill-gotten
properties and shall be depositing the same in the state exchequer. We shall also be locating all those successors who
are enjoying on ill-gotten properties of their forefathers. We know that this is the only way out because otherwise there
are no chances that we could correct our people on government chairs. Confiscation is the only out way and we shall
adopt this way out in due course.
We have been given to understand that people get the government they deserve and if we had not been having good
governments in the past, we must admit our own mistake and we are correcting ourselves. The latest elections show
that we are objecting when a tainted person is given ticket and when someone with low qualifications get ticket. These
are the new trends, which are in the offing and we have chosen the right path. The future of India is on the right
direction and we shall be giving to the world at large a true democracy and we shall lead the world in this direction. The
people of India are slow, but we must admit that they are on the right direction.

democracy
[Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in
directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat.
The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the
capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes.
Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from
restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that
they conform to the principle of equality.
Development
Democracy first flourished in the Greek city-state, reaching its fullest expression in ancient Athens. There the citizens, as
members of the assembly, participated directly in the making of their laws. A democracy of this sort was possible only in a
small state where the people were politically educated, and it was limited since the majority of inhabitants were slaves or
noncitizens. Athenian democracy fell before imperial rule, as did other ancient democracies in the early Italian cities and
the early church. In this period and in the Middle Ages, ideas such as representation crucial to modern Western
democracy were developed.
Doctrines of natural law evolved into the idea of natural rights, i.e., that all people have certain rights, such as self-
preservation, that cannot be taken from them. The idea of contract followed, that rulers and people were bound to each
other by reciprocal obligations. If the sovereign failed in his duties or transgressed on natural rights, the people could take
[Type text]

back their sovereignty. This idea, as postulated by John Locke, strongly influenced the development of British
parliamentary democracy and, as defined in the social contract theory of Jean Jacques Rousseau, helped form the
philosophical justification for the American and French Revolutions. The idea that equality of opportunity can be
maintained through political democracy alone has long been challenged by socialists and others, who insist that economic
democracy through economic equality and public ownership of the major means of production is the only foundation upon
which a true political democracy can be erected.
English settlers in America faced frontier conditions that emphasized the importance of the individual and helped in
breaking down class distinctions and prejudices. These led to a democratic political structure marked by a high degree of
individualism, civil liberty, and a government limited by law. In the 19th cent. emphasis was placed on broadening the
franchise and improving the machinery for enabling the will of the people to be more fully and directly expressed.
Since the mid-20th cent. most political systems have described themselves as democracies, but many of them have not
encouraged competing political parties and have not stressed individual rights and other elements typical of classic
Western democracy. With the collapse of one-party Communist rule in Eastern Europe, the fall of authoritarian
dictatorships in Latin America, and the end of some one-party states in sub-Saharan Africa, however, the number of true
multiparty democracies has increased. Despite the increase in the number of countries holding multiparty elections,
however, the United Nations issued a study in 2002 that stated that in more than half the world's nations the rights and
freedoms of citizens are limited.

Bibliography
See H. Laski, Democracy in Crisis (1933, repr. 1969); R. A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956, repr. 1963) and
Democracy and its Critics (1989); M. I. Finley, Democracy Ancient and Modern (1973); C. B. MacPherson, Democratic
Theory (1973); J. Mansbridge, Beyond Adversary Democracy (1982); B. R. Barber, Strong Democracy: Participatory
Democracy for a New Age (1984); P. Green, Retrieving Democracy: In Search of Civic Equality (1985); F. Bealey,
Democracy in the Contemporary State (1988); T. E. Cronin, Direct Democracy (1989); M. H. Hansen, The Athenian
Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (tr. 1999).

Introduction

Image of the United States Constitution

Developed by the ancient Greeks and idealized by Americans, democracy is a political system in which the power of
government is vested in the people or in their elected representatives. The original Greek form of democracy, called a
“direct democracy” in which the people rule directly without elected officials, is not a typical form of government today,
because it works only in very small communities. Most present day democracies are types of “representative
democracies” where popularly elected officials actually govern. In order to succeed, a democratic state needs to
recognize the equality of its citizens under law as well as certain basic freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom
of the press.
[Type text]

Essential Facts

1. Democracy was first developed as a system of rule in Athens in the sixth century BC. By the time of Pericles (460
BC), Athenian democracy was an elaborate system that had an assembly, a council, and courts. All citizens could
vote…but only a free adult male born in Athens of two Athenian parents was considered a citizen.
2. One of the best examples of direct democracy today comes in the form of U.S. town meetings. All citizens of the
town are welcome to come and speak and vote on town decisions.
3. Most democracies today are representative democracies where the voting public is responsible for electing
representatives to govern. For example, U.S. representatives to Congress are elected directly from each state.
Voting for the U.S. president, however, is not as direct; citizens actually elect representatives to the Electoral
College, which then votes for the president.
4. A democratic state often features a system of checks and balances so that no one part of government can gain
too much power. In such a system, the legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government are split into
different branches, each with the power to put a hold on something done by another branch.
5. Although democracy was developed by the ancient Greeks, the renowned Greek philosopher Plato did not think
that democracy was a good form of government. Plato believed the “people” were too ignorant to rule
themselves well.

Country Democracy Rank Political Rights Civil Liberties Press Freedom   Corruption   Afghanistan 83 5 6 68   Albania 71 3
3 51              75 Algeria 117 6 5 64              73 Andorra   1 1                        14   Angola 126 6 5 66 80 Antigua and Barbuda  
2 2 40   Argentina 64 2 2 41 75 Armenia 110 5 4 64 69 Australia 8 1 1 18 12 Austria 13 1 1 21 16 Azerbaijan 138 6 5 72
81 Bahamas, The   1 1 14   Bahrain   5 5 71   Bangladesh 138 4 4 68              85 Barbados   1 1 17   Belarus 138 7 6 86 67
Belgium 12 1 1 11 25 Belize   1 2 20   Benin 37 2 2 30   Bhutan                       81 6 5 66   Bolivia 61 3 3 35 78 Bosnia and
Herzegovina 101 4 3 45              69 Botswana 43 2 2 30 40 Brazil 51 2 3 40 61 Brunei   6 5 75   Bulgaria 35 1 2 35 59
Burkina Faso 75 5 4 40   Burundi 90 5 5 74   Cambodia 78 6 5 62   Cameroon 128 6 6 68 79 Canada 9 1 1 17 15 Cape
Verde   1 1 32   Central African Republic 79 6 5 63   Chad 85 6 5 73   Chile 17 1 1 24 26 China 129 7 6 82 66 Colombia
106 4 4 63 62 Comoros   4 4 44   Congo, Republic of the 145 5 4 51              80 Cook Islands           Costa Rica 23 1 1 19
51 Cote d'Ivoire 130 6 6 69 80 Croatia 52 2 2 37 65 Cuba 144 7 7 96              63 Cyprus   1                   1 22   Czech Republic
25 1 1 22 58 Dem. Rep. of the Congo 76 6 6 81              67 Denmark 2 1 1 10 5 Djibouti   5 5 67   Dominica   1 1 17  
Dominican Republic 58 2 2 38              71 East Timor   3 3                        30   Ecuador 66 3 3 41 76 Egypt 112 6 5 68 68 El
Salvador 50 2 3 41 58 Equatorial Guinea   7 6 88   Eritrea 94 7 6 91   Estonia 20 1 1 17 40 Ethiopia 125 5 5 68 77 Falkland
Islands       Fiji   4 3 30   Finland 1 1 1 9 3 France 16 1 1 20 29 French Guiana           French Polynesia           Gabon 81 5 4 66
Gambia, The 124 4 4 72              72 Gaza Strip       Georgia 112 3 4 56              80 Germany 11 1 1 16 18 Ghana 48 2 2 26
[Type text]

64 Gibraltar       Greece 34 1 2 28 57 Greenland           Grenada   1 2 20   Guadeloupe       Guam           Guatemala 112 4 4

58              78 Guernsey       Guinea 85 6 5 73   Guinea-Bissau 77 4 4 55   Guyana   2 2 20   Haiti 135 7 6 66              85
Holy See (Vatican City)       Honduras 72 3 3 51              77 Hong Kong           Hungary 24 1 1 21 52 Iceland   1 1 9   India 60
2 3 38 72 Indonesia 119 3 4 58 80 Iran 135 6 6 80              71 Iraq 130 7 5 70              79 Ireland 14 1 1 15 25 Isle of Man      
Israel 41 1 3 28 36 Italy 28 1 1 35 52 Jamaica 45 2 3 15              67 Japan 30 1 2 20 31 Jersey       Jordan 97 5 4 62 47
Kazakhstan 138 6 5 75 78 Kenya 74 3 3 61 79 Kiribati   1 1 26   Korea, North 96 7 7 97   Korea, South 33 1 2 29 55 Kuwait
100 4 5 58              54 Kyrgyzstan 130 6 5 71              78 Laos 91 7 6 83   Latvia 31 1 2 17 60 Lebanon 110 6 5 60              73
Lesotho 39 2 3 42   Liberia 85 5 4 73   Libya 149 7 7 95              75 Liechtenstein   1 1                        14   Lithuania 44 2 2
18 54 Luxembourg   1 1 11   Macau       Macedonia 70 3 3 51              73 Madagascar 68 3 3 50              69 Malawi 107 4 4
54 72 Malaysia 104 4 4 69 50 Maldives   6 5 68   Mali 49 2 2 23              68 Malta   1 1 18   Marshall Islands   1 1 13  
Mauritania 80 6 5 65   Mauritius 28 1 1 28 59 Mexico 55 2 2 42 64 Micronesia   1 1 18   Moldova 123 3 4 65 77 Monaco  
2 1                        14   Mongolia 38 2 2 35   Morocco 109 5 4 63 68 Mozambique 102 3 4 45 72 Myanmar 150 7 7 96
83 Namibia 47 2 3 29 59 Nauru   1 1 29   Nepal 84 5 5 69   Netherlands 7 1 1 11 13 New Zealand 3 1 1 12 4 Nicaragua 63
3 3 42              73 Niger 40 3 3 53   Nigeria 112 4 4 52 84 Norway 6 1 1 10 11 Oman 98 6 5 72              39 Pakistan 121 6
5 61              79 Palau   1 1                        13   Panama 36 1 2 44              63 Papua New Guinea 53 3 3 29              74 Paraguay
73 3 3 56              81 Peru 54 2 3 40 65 Philippines 58 2 3 35 74 Poland 27 1 1 20 65 Portugal 18 1 1 14 37 Puerto Rico      
Qatar   6 5 62   Reunion           Romania 67 3 2 47 71 Russia 121 6 5 68 72 Rwanda 93 6 5 84   Samoa   2 2 25   San
Marino   1 1                        16   Sao Tome and Principe   2 2 28   Saudi Arabia 126 7 7 80              66 Senegal 57 2 3 37 70
Seychelles   3 3 58   Sierra Leone 112 4 3 59              77 Singapore 85 5 4 66 7 Slovakia 26 1 1 21 60 Slovenia 21 1 1 19 40
Solomon Islands   3 3 30   Somalia 91 6 7 83   South Africa 32 1 2 26 54 Spain 18 1 1 22 29 Sri Lanka 69 3 3 56              65 St
Kitts and Nevis   1 2 23   St Lucia   1 2 16   St Vincent and the Grenadines   2 1 16   Sudan 147 7 7 86              78 Suriname  
1 2 20   Swaziland   7 5 79   Sweden 4 1 1 9 8 Switzerland 5 1 1 11 9 Syria 130 7 7 83              66 Taiwan 42 2 1 21 44
Tajikistan 142 6 5 74              80 Tanzania 105 4 3 51 72 Thailand 55 2 3 42 64 Togo 85 6 5 73   Tonga   5 3 37   Trinidad
and Tobago 45 3 3 24              58 Tunisia 108 6 5 80 50 Turkey 64 3 3 48 68 Turkmenistan 95 7 7 96   Tuvalu   1 1
20   Uganda 103 5 4 44 74 Ukraine 117 4 3 59 78 United Arab Emirates 98 6 6 72              39 United Kingdom 9 1 1 18 14
United States 15 1 1 17 25 Uruguay 22 1 1 29              38 Uzbekistan 146 7 6 85 77 Vanuatu   2 2 24   Venezuela 130 3 4 72
77 Vietnam 143 7 6 82 74 West Bank       Western Sahara           Yemen 137 5 5 76             76 Yugoslavia 61 3 2 40 73
Zambia 120 4 4 65 74 Zimbabwe 148 7 6 89 77

Democracy as Problem Solving

Civic Capacity in Communities Across the Globe
Xavier de Souza Briggs

Table of Contents and Sample Chapters

[Type text]

Complexity, division, mistrust, and "process paralysis" can thwart leaders and others when they tackle local challenges.
In Democracy as Problem Solving, Xavier de Souza Briggs shows how civic capacity—the capacity to create and sustain
smart collective action—can be developed and used. In an era of sharp debate over the conditions under which
democracy can develop while broadening participation and building community, Briggs argues that understanding and
building civic capacity is crucial for strengthening governance and changing the state of the world in the process. More
than managing a contest among interest groups or spurring deliberation to reframe issues, democracy can be what the
public most desires: a recipe for significant progress on important problems.

Briggs examines efforts in six cities, in the United States, Brazil, India, and South Africa, that face the millennial
challenges of rapid urban growth, economic restructuring, and investing in the next generation. These challenges
demand the engagement of government, business, and nongovernmental sectors. And the keys to progress include the
ability to combine learning and bargaining continuously, forge multiple forms of accountability, and find ways to
leverage the capacity of the grassroots and what Briggs terms the "grasstops," regardless of who initiates change or who
participates over time. Civic capacity, Briggs shows, can—and must—be developed even in places that lack traditions of
cooperative civic action.

Democracy is the most sought after, but the most elusive, concept in political science. There is virtually no
regime in the contemporary world that does not either call itself democratic or promise to be about to restore
democracy,1 and thus a prime candidate for a concept that might be called ideology. And recently Francis
Fukayama has enjoyed widespread enthusiasm for his thesis that liberal capitalist democracy is the highest and
final political form to which humanity can aspire. The present lecture is devoted to examining the validity of
this point of view.

It is often said that democracy is an essentially contested concept—a concept the very definition of which is
inherently controversial.2 Indeed, the universal acclaim enjoyed by democracy in the 20th century among
apparently different regimes might seem to enhance this view. But it is more accurate to say that it is not the
definition of democracy which is contestable but its application: the debate is not so much about the meaning of
democracy but about how much we can or should have. Most would agree that democracy involves the idea of
popular power where all members of a collectivity enjoy equal control over the decision-making process. Thus
Schumpeter's famously 'elitist' model of democracy or those who describe democracy in terms merely of
[Type text]

consent are really saying that the most that current circumstances permit us to aspire to is that the people should
consent to what the government wants rather than that the government should consent to what the people want.

Enthusiasm for democracy in its representative and parliamentary form continues unmitigated as the 21st
century begins but, although democracy remains the norm, there is a profound malaise about its potential. One
reason for this is undoubtedly the emasculation of the concept, the attempt to define a way its critical edge, the
eclipse of its historical promise. The best known example of this is the work of Joseph Schumpeter which tries
to reconcile the views of elite theorists such as Mosca, Pareto and Michels, who claimed that it was always
elites rather than the people who ruled, with democratic principles. He achieved this remarkable feat by
redefining democracy as the people's choosing between competing elites at periodic elections.3 And a plethora
of authors have followed his lead stressing the ignorance of the masses who are evidently unqualified to decide
methods of high policy and whose role should be linked to choosing those who are so qualified.4 A different
version of the same theme is the view, in the early work of Dahl for example,5 of government as responding to
interest groups through which, in a pluralist society, people express their preferences. And a more rigorous
approach, with essentially the same conclusion, comes from those such as Riker and McLean who use social
choice theory to claim that citizens are incapable of deciding policy. 'In the simplest case' writes McLean, 'If
voter 1 prefers a to be and b to c, voter 2 prefers c to a and a to b, and voter 3 prefers c to a and a to b, there is a
majority for a over b, a majority for b over c, and a majority for c over a'.6 The possibility of this cycle is held to
demonstrate the impossibility of a popular vote's reflecting majority opinion (though presumable the same
objection should apply to the people's representatives as well). Plato is thus vindicated: the social division of
labour advocated by this minimalist approach places politics safely out of the reach of the vast majority.

No wonder that with such dubious friends, democracy as currently practised has a bad name and has even been
called 'pseudo-democracy'.7 The superior wisdom of leaders which it presupposes is increasingly called into
question as is the reliability of technical expertise—let alone the unsatisfyingly jejune picture of human nature
which it implies. But above and beyond this is the feeling that politics is irrelevant, that democracy is hollow.
The heart of the present malaise is the realisation that the very nature of our democracy is misguided. It is
formal, not substantial. It is concerned with procedures and not outcomes, as in the classic exposition of Hayek
where the idea of 'social' justices a contradiction in terms.8 This idea resurfaces in a more practical guise in
recent arguments for European Monetary Union and an independent central bank, or the view that the inflation
of the 1970s came from too much democracy.9 The formal democracy and civic equality that we have at present
leaves social and economic inequalities intact and allows economic dependence and exploitation to flourish. As
the industrial revolution proceeded peasants and cottage workers found that their political equality was bought
at a price of increasing economic dependence—political freedom was accompanied by economic compulsion.
Even more seriously, it is difficult to separate political from economic inequality. Advantages attaching to class,
race and gender far outweigh the equality of franchise and freedom of speech; compared to the power exercised
by wealth in affecting political decisions, the possession of a single vote seems meagre indeed. Even Robert
Dahl, a previously enthusiastic advocate of a behavioural analysis of democracy in which the polyarchy of
interest groups dispersed power throughout contemporary pluralist societies, has been lead profoundly to
modify his views: 'the consequences', he writes, 'of the economic order for the distribution of resources,
strategic positions, and bargaining strength, and hence for political equality, provides an additional reason for
concern over the ownership and government of economic enterprises. For the prevailing systems of ownership
and control results in substantial inequalities not only in wealth and income but in the host of other values
attached to work, job, ownership, wealth, and income'.10 To many it has seemed anomalous that big businesses,
which wield so much political power and effect the life chances of most of us should yet be controlled by the
few in spite of being—through pension funds, insurance policies, bag deposits—financed by the many. To
ignore such questions is, as David Held writes: 'to risk the creation of, at best, a very partial form of democratic
politics—a form of politics in which the involvement of some bears a direct relation to the limited participation
or non-participation of others'.11
[Type text]

The central reason for this anomalous state of affairs is that democracy, at least in its Anglo-Saxon version, has
been more liberal than democratic. It is no accident that liberalism, unlike democracy, is a modem notion.
Liberalism with its insistence on the primacy of the individual, on limited government, on the distinction
between public and private, was unknown to antiquity because there was no centralised superior state:
liberalism begins with the emergence of the nation state, as an attempt to safeguard feudal rights and privileges
against centratising monarchies. The milestones in the political history of England, at least, are liberal and not
democratic—the Cromwellian settlement and 1688 were considered as attempts to divert democracy by means
of constitutional parliamentary government. Even in the United States, where the overt rule of a landed
oligarchy was not possible, democracy could still be curtailed by the institution of representative government
which acted as a filter: the alienation of political power through the election of representatives meant, in effect,
a system of government which a thinker such as Aristotle would have had no hesitation in describing as
oligarchy. During the 19th century democracy as a concept came to be more and more identified with liberalism
and therefore more acceptable. And liberalism has come to be more associated with the market which could
exercise its own economic compulsions which liberal principles came to defend if necessary by force. This
defence of the power of private property was paralleled by an insistence on the family as a private ghetto whose
perimeter public authority might police but not cross, thus affording another area where male power could be
wielded without hindrance. This is not to deny that liberal political theorists, of whom John Stuart Mill is
perhaps the best example, have been concerned with admirable issues such as protection from arbitrary political
power, consent to governmental authority, respect for the diversity of opinion and the enhancement of
individual choice and opportunity. And contemporary political thinkers such as Walzer and Kymlicka, have
made imaginative concessions to their communitarian critics.12 But the essence of liberalism is still a relentless
insistence on the individual—an individual who is very specific to Western societies (and to their male half at
that): solitary, self-owning, and self-centred. With such a conception liberals can only envision a very etiolated
democracy as a form of limited government and not, like Pericles, as a way of life.

How can this sorry situation be improved or must we settle for pseudodemocracy? We must ask ourselves
whether it is possible to break down the separation of economics and politics and extend democracy into the
economic sphere. This poses the question: is capitalism compatible with democracy and, if not, is it so much the
worst for capitalism—or for democracy? Does liberal democracy in its present form seem to be the end of
History because it is really unsurpassable or has it merely reached the end of its tether? To put it more modestly:
can we modify liberalism without destroying even the very 'weak' democracy13 that we currently enjoy? The
sheer size and complexity of modem societies together with the economic and social inequality they reproduce
seem to give force to Dunn's statement that 'today, in politics, democracy is the name for what we cannot have
—yet cannot cease to want'.14 Let us look at some of the suggestions that would have us reject such a
pessimistic conclusion.

It is natural first to turn to the most articulate critique of the short comings of liberal democracy—socialism. But
socialism itself is currently beset with problems. In its full-blooded (although, from a strictly Marxist point of
view, extremely deviant) form in the Soviet Union, it is clearly perceived as a failure. However successful in the
early decades of its existence in promoting economic growth, its central planning eventually failed to deliver on
its promise of increased economic well-being and fairer distribution of goods.

With the collapse of Communism an alternative, in theory if rarely in practice, to what democracy meant in the
West has disappeared. Nor has the traditional social democratic variant fared much better. Keynesianism in one
country is vulnerable to the growing globalisation of finance; the welfare state is perceived a remote, inefficient,
and bureaucratic rather than democratic; and the increasingly disorganised nature of the capitalism of the new
world order is reflected in the appearance of new social movements not based on the traditional socialist
category of class. One result is a growing (and impressive) literature on market socialism;15 but the feeling
remains that the conjuncture of these two terms is an uneasy one.
[Type text]

Many of those who feel uneasy with the solutions proposed by traditional socialism, including many in these
new social movements, have proceeded to reinterpret socialism in terms of radical democracy seen as a
potentially unifying concept for all the emancipatory projects of the left. Two themes stand out in their effort
thus to reinvigorate the theory and practice of democracy. First, there has been a revival of interest in classical
republican democracy with its emphasis on the idea of a common good different from a mere aggregate of
individual self interests and the necessity of equal political participation of all for its implementation.16 Of
course, in contemporary societies social inequalities and the model of the market makes the notion of a common
good rather tenuous. But there is a realisation that if everyone stands on tiptoe no one sees any better and that
there is a general interest in the provision of e.g. health and education that cannot be adequately represented by
interest groups even majority ones. The point was well put by Mill: 'two very different ideas are usually
confounded under the name of democracy. The pure idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the
government of the whole people by the whole people, equally represented. Democracy as commonly conceived
and hitherto practised is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people, exclusively
represented.'17 The lesson is that, to secure this general interest, reliance on the vote and on rights is
inadequate.18 And the main teacher of this lesson, after Machiavelli, was Rousseau who notoriously insisted that
the British people were free only once every five years, on election day. Representation may be a necessary
institution, but it can only be genuinely democratic when reinforced by enhanced participation—a deliberative
democracy which actually develops capacities and creates identities previously occluded by disadvantage and
oppression.19 A contemporary example of such a vision of a self-managed society might be the 'Forum politics'
which preceded the revolutionary movements of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s.20 The point is to know how
we can be properly represented: one person one vote may be a minimum condition—but it is no more than that.
Consider Green's description of what he calls 'town meeting democracy': 'a decision is reached after discussion
by the assembled citizens, and some official—the town engineer, the town manager, the town council, etc.—is
then authorised to carry out that decision.... This makes town meeting democracy decisively different from our
own pseudo-representative system; for the meeting authorises its agents to do something, whereas we authorise
our representatives to do anything'.21 This does not necessarily mean abolishing all hierarchy, all deployment of
private capital, or appeal to expertise. The aim is not equality per se but equality of political participation—and
the consequent removal of all obstacles which stand in its way.

Second, this interest in republican participation and active citizenship has been accompanied by a renewal of
interest in the concept of civil society. In the past, the meaning of 'civil society' has been variable. Whereas in
17th century England civil society was co-terminus with the state whose function it was to protect private
property, in the following century civil society denoted a space, primarily economic, that was separate from the
state, as in Hegel and Marx. Indeed, in Marx's early writings (where the concept of civil society figures most
prominently) his point is to criticize the gap between the state as the phantasy of alienated human beings and the
sphere of (ideal) common interest as opposed to the economic war of all against all of civil society. On this
view, the transition to socialism would close this gap and transform civil society by P. Green, Retrieving
Democracy: In Search of Civic Equality, Methuen, 1986, pp. 176 f. infusing it with real freedom and equality
hitherto banished to the sphere of the State. This narrow conception of Marx was broadened by Gramsci who
emphasised civil society as the non-political sphere where the defused power of capital could exercise its
ideology and cultural hegemony. The concept was used in Eastern Europe in the struggle against state
bureaucracy where the idea of civil society was deployed to reconstruct democratic politics. Following the
collapse of Communism there, it was re-imported into the West, as a foundation for more progressive attitudes
to democracy.22 Its meaning remains ambiguous as between a social, economic and political world of
arrangements between groups that are not subject to direct political control, or a more restricted concept
referring to civil associations and groups such as charities, churches, or social movements. The very vagueness
of the term means that often currently fashionable talk about civil society is no more than the oldfashioned
pluralism of Eckstein and Dahl. The crucial question here is the role of the economy—is it simply one among
many parts of civil society or does it contain a totalising logic which permeates and governs all other spheres?23
It is difficult to see the capitalist system as merely one among many aspects of the pluralist complexity of
[Type text]

modem society. Commodification is inherently imperialist. And the current distribution of economic resources
tends to limit access to organisations and institutions where the role of the state is often to support the private
power exercised therein—consider the idea of a free press not as one measured by the equal access of citizens to
self-expression but as the freedom of its owners to profit from, their property. Civil society can often be another
name for a market-led society where politics, and therefore democracy, is seen at best as limited to guaranteeing
its smooth functioning and at worst as a necessary evil.

All this only serves to emphasise the centrality of the question of the relationship of capitalism to democracy.
At first sight, the term 'capitalist democracy' would seem to be an oxymoron: the capitalist free market makes
for elitism and minimal political power whereas democracy favours equality and regulation.24 This may be too
harsh: the achievements of capitalist formal democracy at its best—the rule of law, guarantees of civil liberty
and adequate representation—obviously mark an advance on societies which lack such benefits. But at the same
time capitalism involves the creation of enormous powers outside the control of the community beside which
any power that might be called democratic seems puny indeed. If capitalists were deprived of the vote what
difference would it make? The view that what is good for General Motors is good for the United States and,
more importantly, vice versa says it all. Thus capitalist societies tend systematically to devalue politics. In
ancient and feudal society, politics was important because economic power flowed from political power. In
capitalist societies it is the other way round and the separation of the economic and the political tends to
minimize political goods: if democracy is only 'political' then it is increasingly seen as largely irrelevant and
indeed alienating—in the very act of a voting many citizens feet they have given away what little political
power they had. Moreover, politics is still more unnecessary for those who can buy their way out of the
problems such as pollution and toxicity that their own activities have caused. It is true that the excesses of a free
market capitalism have been restrained in some societies: rather than just capitalism, there are capitalisms.
Japan, for example, by encouraging a sense of community within the enterprise and a corporatist relationship
between enterprises and the state has modified competition by cooperation. But how far either inherited cultural
practices or Keynesian governmental intervention can hope to tame the market must remain an open question.
The answer must depend, at least in part, on the performance of capitalism itself. Capitalist society appears at
present to be inefficient in that its characteristic long-term structural unemployment, with the accompanying
products of poverty and crime, co-exists with huge waste of resources on advertisement, legal fees, and luxury
services and all sorts of essentially Unproductive activities. Nor can the free market provide any convincing
solution to environmental and pollution problems which require, at the very least, some form of regulation and
planning. Whether these factors will spell the demise of capitalism or only its modification remains to be seen.

It should be noted, of course, that democracy is still usually discussed in terms of the nation-state. But the
international dimension of our topic is increasingly intruding itself. Although there is much debate as to whether
nationalism is in decline,25 few can dispute the decline in power and authority of the nation- state, an institution
which is being increasingly challenged from below and from above. As mentioned before, it is the globalisation
of the economy which makes national solutions to economic problems questionable. And threats such as
environmental pollution, aids, or nuclear proliferation, are not patient of national solutions. It may be that the
growing body of international law and the authority of such international institutions as the WHO or the IW
could prove to be the kernel of a future cosmopolitan democratic order.26

Finally, the fate of democracy, whether national or international, is bound up with the profound problems
associated with the alleged demise of modernity. The democratic tradition has depended on the values of a
robust humanism. What if, as some versions of postmodernism suggest, a relativist pluralism is extending into
individual psychology and life-style and involving an aestheticization of politic which robs democracy of its
traditional ethical foundation? And, of course, many have thought this approach to be postideological. In a
fragmented society in which all that is solid melts into air upon what basis can democracy hope to build? Some
have seen postmodernism as part of the solution to the question of democracy rather than part of the problem.
They welcome the way in which a fragmented society creates space for more diverse social identities and
[Type text]

attempt, in the name of their specificity, to counteract the new inequalities of the liberal market and the
bureaucratic state.27 But it is easy to be too enthusiastic here and to forget that the critique of modernist liberal
universalism can simply strengthen traditional hierarchy.28 Liberal values need to be extended rather than
jettisoned—better, for example, to realise that inequality is a complex concept rather than to deny its validity.29
Moreover, a society unified only by the market is inconceivable—contract, as Hegel pointed out,30 cannot go all
the way down. In any case, democracy is best viewed not as itself the foundation of society but as a means of
arriving at a consensus on what that foundation might be. The very notion of a consensus presupposes equally
free political participation of all members of society—and the social and economic and political circumstances
that might guarantee that participation.31 In this sense, the values implicit in a democratic outlook are indeed
necessarily universal and the political system is not simply one among many. Although democracy does not
itself prescribe what the common good or the 'good life' might be, political democracy is universal in that it
guarantees the equal participation of all citizens in determining what that good might be. And the
democratisation of both state and civil society is a necessary precondition of such a possibility. It is important to
remember that democracy is not something which has been achieved but something to be aimed at. The aim is
self-government. The extension of the Athenian ideal to all members of society may be impossible, but at least
we can try to ensure that those who exercise political power are answerable to those over whom it is exercised.
Such accountability is eroded by the growingly asymmetrical production and distribution of life-chances in the
contemporary world. In spite of the fragmentation, diversity, and relativism that characterises our society,
almost all are agreed on how the currently lamentable circumstances under which we conduct our government
might be improved. The main obstacle to this is that those who have power are unwilling to give it up.
[Type text]

Democracy, Good Or Bad?

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all others that have been tried," was said by Winston
Churchill.   This is an interesting statement that I partly agree with.   Before agreeing or not, one must decide
what exactly makes a "good" or "bad" government.   The actual role of the government is very debatable,
however in general all governments provide some degree of security, infrastructure, and organization of the
State and is upheld by the social contract everyone signs metaphorically, or in some cases literally, by simply
living in the State.   That is the general role of a government.
It appears by Churchill's statement that there is no "good" government.   I agree to this to an extent as
governments are constantly being reformed or overthrown.   This is mostly caused by the variety of opinions in
people.   The problem is there is no perfect degree of security, infrastructure or organization that will appeal to
every single person living under

Is this Essay helpful? Join OPPapers to read more and access more than 200,000 just like it!

get better grades
the State individually.   Ideally in a Democracy the people will get to decide to which degree the State is run.  
The fundamental flaw is that the people disagree and mobocracy prevails.   For example, 51% of the people
voted for increase in police powers hence, the opinion of 49% of the people doesn't matter in a Democracy.  
Unless of course, the 49% get very zealous that their view is right and decides Democracy isn't so much fun
anymore now that the obviously wrong side is winning.   For example, this is particularly dangerous in the U.S.
due to the 2nd Amendment which compliments nicely to our social contract that "whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government."   If all the 50% of Gore voters in the 2000 elections decided they weren't going to
tolerate the other half of the voters, according to the Declaration of Independence they have the power to make
the entire voting process null, even through force....

Well i personally feel that yes it is hampering India's growth and progress...
Justification for my words -->
[Type text]

* The people who have chosen by the indian people are not educated enough and capable enough to run the
government properly.
* Democracy putting forward lot of restrictions on business to run it as profitable enterpise rther then it is
becoming more like running for social causes.
* In some sense yes. You know, becaus of the way the system is built, lot of regulations and formalities come
into picture. The bureaucracy leads to delays.
* Yes,as all can see from the TV news and read the papers,everything is being moulded according to the
wishes of the so called protectors of the democracy.
* Why separate scales are being used for same kind of work/service.

Democracy for India- boon or bane?

At about this time 62 years back, Nehru's famous 'tryst with destiny' speech heralded the entry of our country to the
legion of democracies, having attained freedom after a long and hard fought struggle, with the sacrifices of countless
people. At this justifiably proud moment of celebration, if we were to ask this question and try to find a honest and
truthful answer to it what would it be? No doubt it has been a boon to varying degrees to everybody who would be
reading this and their families, but what about the hundreds of millions of Indians whose hopes and aspirations were
never realised, untouched by the purported freedom attained by India? Has democracy not meant the voice of the rich,
powerful, 'connected' is heard/represented more than that of its impoverished millions? Has the power of being able to
'vote out' every 5 years the non performing politicians/parties become a joke, with nothing to choose between the devil
and deep sea? If we are proud to be the world's largest democracy, should we not be collectively ashamed to be in the
bottom of the tables in so many development parameters?
1.Over the decades since independence, we have become a nation run by 'lobbysits'-they have a disproportionate say in
bringing in/bringing down governments- be them powerful industrialists, politicians practising caste/religion/region
based politics. One thing common amongst them is that they place their interests above the nation's and work feverishly
towards attaining it by hook or crook.
2.Even if the country has at its helm of affairs, people of great caliber, unblemished and with unimpeachable personal
integrity, why is it that everybody below is into corrupt practises, so blatant that they 'lobby', for the most lucrative
ministries and posts and loot and plunder the nation, this goes on under the very noses of our leaders with
unimpeachable integrity and percolates to the lowest level of governance.
3.Millions live in conditions of such impoverishment and hunger and poverty and the nation if it had a collective
conscience, would have taken it up on a war footing to bring them up to atleast a 'human' level of existence.
True, we may console ourselves, be optimistic that things are changing albeit slowly,and we will be there some day-
when is that some day- 250 years from now?, at the pace of change we have seen thus far.
Democracy has meant rights for some at the cost of the majority of its populace, and while responsibilities and duties
should have been the other side of the coin, it has conveniently been cast aside.
We are great at lip service- notice the big speeches delivered on the independece eve, from the president and PM, you
could record them and play them all over without having to see the next version.
I donot know what is a better alternative, of this I am pretty sure- democracy is a failed experiment for India thus far.
May be we need a 'guided democracy' for some time, may be an altogether new model,which may not even have a
parallel.(I am not advocating communism/dictatorship/theocracies/monarchies etc, which have all failed miserably).

Democracy: boon or bane

By thingstoknowboutmyelective
[Type text]

Blog entry on Democracy and Human Rights

 

                Democracy, to me, is near idealistic. It will be ideal if it is really implemented well, and when people stick to its
principles, that all members of the society have equal access to power, and they enjoy universally recognized freedoms
and liberties.  Yet, is this possible?

                I feel that democracy is effective, if it is carried out on a global scale. This is because the consideration of
decisions will span across the different countries and nation-states, thus eradicating class and inequalities in the world.
This is because even people and the rulers in Third-World Countries will have a say in the drafting and implementing of
policies, and give their opinions on the ways of using resources on this planet. They will not be overridden by the richer
countries, which may dominate institutions like the United Nations. Democracy does not necessarily mean that these
Third World Countries will definitely be able to reach what they want to achieve, but this platform will give them a voice
for their opinions to be aired.

                I feel that it is only with democracy that they would not be exploited: they can protest when their natural
resources are exploited by the richer nations, because democracy gives them a hope of equality: they know that
everyone should be treated equally and that they should not be at the beck and call of the richer nations. The natural
resources are found on their land, they too have a right to use the resources to generate wealth and income for
themselves, and not be used as stepping stones for the rich to get even richer.

                This is why I feel that what Seymour Martin Lipset said can be reversed. It is shown in his studies that as
national wealth increased, so did the likelihood of democracy. However, I feel that once the principle of democracy is
instilled in the mindsets of the people in the countries, they know they are able to change their lives better, and this
gives them hope. They will then strive to work harder, and fight for their own rights, because they are in no way inferior
to the ‘more superior classes’. They progress socially, and morale in the country is higher, which to me is part of the way
leading to them enjoying better lives. This is then democracy causing national wealth to increase.

                Democracy can also however, be a double-edged sword, especially when it is not implemented properly.
Thomas Jefferson, to me, has a quote that is just apt to illustrate this: ‘“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule,
where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”  Democracy may just be a run
for popularity. Leaders might hand out subsidies for increasing power, and might then again use their increased power
to their own advantage. It is then in this case where I feel that bad democracy may be more detrimental than other sorts
of government: because of the illusion that democracy allows the majority to change a part of their lives, they may get
complacent, and take comfort in the idea of ‘safety in numbers’. Therefore, they do not start to advocate change, and
may just go with the flow, blindly supporting a leader who his campaigning for his own cause or advantage with the
facade of the betterment of the civilians’ lives.     

                In conclusion, ideal democracy to me is utopia. It only happens when the leaders are really sincere in doing
good for the people, and are not motivated by greed or power. It also works only if everyone is really clear of what will
be good for them, and the results that policies will yield, which i think is perhaps, quite impossible.

Is it a democracy we are living in. Since the coalition government has taken up the charge , it’s more of a secular
dictatorship rather than a democracy. After 50 years of Independence what we have achieved seriously. Every time the
elections come we talk of the same issues. We are still stuck up with the issue of reservation rather than concentrating
on improving the primary education. Some things like freedom of thought and expression are taken for granted because
we don’t even have the freedom to express. Recently issue of blogging came into news. Is it worthwhile. It is the fast and
[Type text]

most effective way of reaching information reaching all over the world and it is most apt way of expressing one’s views
about any topic. It is the voice of a common man. If we are not able to express, how we’ll bring about a change. Recently
the Mumbai blasts took a toll of hundreds of people and blogging was the most effective way but then it was banned.
It’s not that democracy has proved to be a total failure. Software boom has come which has given India a different image
altogether. Now whether it’s an automobile industry, airline industry, beverages industry- all are doing well. After the
financial reforms came and globalization and privatization has crept in, it has changed the overall scenario. Now we can
talk of really good projects such as Golden Quadrilateral, but since the government has changed , all this is a talk of past.
We were lucky to have a prime minister like Atal Bihari Vajpayee under whose leadership, India has seen some positive
changes. India has always been seen as a soft country who is not capable of doing anything especially in terms of
Kashmir Issue which has not been solved yet. But now it is time to take a tough stand. Leader is one who is powerful in
himself and who is able to take his own decision. But if ministers like Manmohan Singh is there to protect our country
under the leadership of Ms. Sonia Gandhi, then India is surely moving towards the wrong path.

Democracy
Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, either by
direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative
democracy).[1] The term comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία – (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[2] which was
coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power", in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to
denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular
uprising in 508 BC.[3] Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[4] equality
and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.[5] These
principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. For
example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no restrictions can apply to anyone
wanting to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties
which are generally protected by a constitution.[6][7]

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 – through the use of
balances – to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of
the system of rule could accumulate power thus become undemocratic.[10][11][12]

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or
constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for a minority of individuals to be oppressed by
the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies is 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][16]

Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating subject for establishing a democracy.[17] In some
countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term
"democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political
pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process;
civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.

In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as
the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial
[Type text]

independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though
the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private
organizations and other groups also.

Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece.[18][19] However other cultures have significantly contributed to the
evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome,[18] Europe,[18] and North and South America.[20] The concept of
representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle
Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the American and French Revolutions.[21] Democracy has been called
the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[22] The right to vote has been
expanded in many Jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular
ethnic group), with New Zealand the first nation to grant universal suffrage for all its citizens in 1893.

“Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.”

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.
Abraham Lincoln
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill
Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really
the test of civilization.
Winston Churchill
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name
of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mohandas Gandhi
The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart.
Mohandas Gandhi
Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
Ronald Reagan
Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.
Ronald Reagan
If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike
share in government to the utmost.
Aristotle
Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
Aristotle
In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is
supreme.
Aristotle
Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free,
they claim to be absolutely equal.
Aristotle
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.
Oscar Wilde
Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can
[Type text]

neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.
John F. Kennedy
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy
Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left
unsaid.
Bob Dylan
Democracy passes into despotism.
Plato
Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme
liberty.
Plato
Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals
alike.
Plato
Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy.
Plato

History of democracy
Main article: History of democracy

Ancient origins

The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. The philosopher Plato
contrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by
one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite class) and timocracy (ruling class of property owners).[23]
Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally
it had two distinguishing features: first the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government
offices and courts,[24] and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens.[25]

All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. However, the
Athenian citizenship was only for males born from a father who was citizen and who had been doing their
"military service" between 18 and 20 years old; this excluded women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι / metoikoi)
and males under 20 years old. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those
30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the
officers and magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other
officers were elected.[3]

A possible example of primitive democracy may have been the early Sumerian city-states.[26] A similar proto-
democracy or oligarchy existed temporarily among the Medes (ancient Iranian people) in the 6th century BC,
but which came to an end after the Achaemenid (Persian) Emperor Darius the Great declared that the best
monarchy was better than the best oligarchy or best democracy.[27]
[Type text]

A serious claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics" of India, sanghas and
ganas, which existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century AD. The
evidence is scattered and no pure historical source exists for that period. In addition, Diodorus (a Greek
historian at the time of Alexander the Great's excursion of India), without offering any detail, mentions that
independent and democratic states existed in India.[28] However, modern scholars note that the word democracy
at the 3rd century BC and later had been degraded and could mean any autonomous state no matter how
oligarchic it was.[29][30] The lack of the concept of citizen equality across caste system boundaries lead many
scholars to believe that the true nature of ganas and sanghas would not be comparable to that of truly
democratic institutions.[31]

Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to certain aspects of democracy, only a minority of
Romans were citizens. As such, having votes in elections for choosing representatives and then the votes of the
powerful were given more weight through a system of Gerrymandering. For that reason, almost all high
officials, including members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and noble families.[32] However, many
notable exceptions did occur.

Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only
involving a small amount of the population, the election of Gopala in Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, the Løgting in the Faroe Islands certain medieval Italian city-states such
as Venice, the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of
medieval Russia, Scandinavian Things, The States in Tirol and Switzerland and the autonomous merchant city
of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan. However, participation was often restricted to a minority, and so may be
better classified as oligarchy. Most regions in medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords.

A little closer to modern democracy were the Cossack republics of Ukraine in the 16th–17th centuries: Cossack
Hetmanate and Zaporizhian Sich. The highest post – the Hetman – was elected by the representatives from the
country's districts. Because these states were very militarised, the right to participate in Hetman's elections was
largely restricted to those who served in the Cossack Army and over time was curtailed effectively limiting
these rights to higher army ranks.

Magna Carta, 1215, England

The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta,
explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported
what became English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment
with right to appeal. The first elected parliament was De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265.

However only a small minority actually had a voice; Parliament was elected by only a few percent of the
population, (less than 3% as late as 1780[33]), and the power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the
[Type text]

monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). The power of Parliament increased in stages over the
succeeding centuries. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was enacted,
which codified certain rights and increased the influence of Parliament.[33] The franchise was slowly increased
and Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead.[34] As the franchise
was increased, it also was made more uniform, as many so-called rotten boroughs, with a handful of voters
electing a Member of Parliament, were eliminated in the Reform Act of 1832.

Democracy was also seen to a certain extent in bands and tribes such as the Iroquois Confederacy. However, in
the Iroquois Confederacy only the males of certain clans could be leaders and some clans were excluded. Only
the oldest females from the same clans could choose and remove the leaders. This excluded most of the
population. An interesting detail is that there should be consensus among the leaders, not majority support
decided by voting, when making decisions.[35][36]

Band societies, such as the Bushmen, which usually number 20-50 people in the band often do not have leaders
and make decisions based on consensus among the majority. In Melanesia, farming village communities have
traditionally been egalitarian and lacking in a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy. Although a "Big man" or "Big
woman" could gain influence, that influence was conditional on a continued demonstration of leadership skills,
and on the willingness of the community. Every person was expected to share in communal duties, and entitled
to participate in communal decisions. However, strong social pressure encouraged conformity and discouraged
individualism.[37]

18th and 19th centuries

Number of nations 1800–2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of
democracy.

Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States founders shared a
determination to root the American experiment in the principle of natural freedom and equality. [38] The United
States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties
for some.

In the colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, only adult white male property owners could vote;
enslaved Africans, free black people and women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier,
democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality.[39] However, slavery
was a social and economic institution, particularly in eleven states in the American South, that a variety of
organizations were established advocating the movement of black people from the United States to locations
where they would enjoy greater freedom and equality.[40]
[Type text]

During the 1820s and 1830s the American Colonization Society (A.C.S.) was the primary vehicle for proposals
to return black Americans to freedom in Africa, and in 1821 the A.C.S. established the colony of Liberia,
assisting thousands of former African-American slaves and free black people to move there from the United
States.[40] By the 1840s almost all property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could
vote; and turnout averaged 60–80% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The system
gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond. In the 1860 United
States Census the slave population in the United States had grown to four million,[41] and in Reconstruction after
the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to
vote. Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after the African-American Civil Rights Movement
(1955–1968) gained passage by the United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of
democracy.

In 1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although
short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males in 1792.[42] Universal male suffrage was definitely
established in France in March 1848 in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[43] In 1848, several
revolutions broke out in Europe as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and
more democratic government.[44]

The Australian colonies became democratic during the mid-19th century, with South Australia being the first
government in the world to introduce women's suffrage in 1861. (It was argued that as women would vote the
same as their husbands, this essentially gave married men two votes, which was not unreasonable.)

New Zealand granted suffrage to (native) Māori men in 1867, white men in 1879, and women in 1893, thus
becoming the first major nation to achieve universal suffrage. However, women were not eligible to stand for
parliament until 1919.

Liberal democracies were few and often short-lived before the late 19th century, and various nations and
territories have also claimed to be the first with universal suffrage.

20th century
[Type text]

Since World War II, democracy has gained widespread acceptance. This map displays the official self
identification made by world governments with regard to democracy, as of March 2008. It shows the de jure
status of democracy in the world.[citation needed]      Governments self identified as democratic[citation needed]      Governments
not self identified as democratic: Vatican City, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and Brunei.[citation needed]

20th century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy," variously
resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, religious and economic circumstances. World War I and the
dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states from
Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic.

In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment, and most of the countries
of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships
flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in the Baltics, the
Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others.[45]

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratization of
the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[46]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied
Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change.

However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-democratic
Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had
nominally democratic constitutions. India emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so.[47]

By 1960, the vast majority of country-states were nominally democracies, although the majority of the world's
populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in
Communist nations and the former colonies.)

This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different categories given above
for the period for which there are surveys, 1972–2005
[Type text]

A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many
nations. Spain, Portugal (1974), and several of the military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian
rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and Chile
in the early 1990s). This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid-to-late 1980s.

Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of
the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratization and liberalization of the former
Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally
closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union[citation needed] .
Some researchers consider that in contemporary Russia there is no real democracy and one of forms of
dictatorship takes place.[48]

The Economist's Democracy Index as published in January 2008. The palest blue countries get a score above
9.5 out of 10 (with Sweden being the most democratic country at 9.88), while the black countries score below 2
(with North Korea being the least democratic at 0.86).

The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent
examples of attempts of liberalization include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in
Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in
Lebanon, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan.

Currently, there are 123 countries that are democratic (up from 40 in 1972).[49][citation needed] As such, it has been
speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become
the universal standard form of human society. This prediction forms the core of Francis Fukayama's "End of
History" controversial theory. These theories are criticized by those who fear an evolution of liberal
democracies to post-democracy, and other who points out the high number of illiberal democracies.

Forms
Main articles: Varieties of democracy and List of types of democracy

Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. The following kinds are not exclusive of
one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single
system.
[Type text]

Political ratings of countries according to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World survey,
2009:      Free     Partly Free     Not Free

Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2010 survey Freedom
in the World

Representative

Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the
head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic.[50] The most common
mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.

Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency),
or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the
two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A
characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in
their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.

Parliamentary

Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary

representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of
government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative
parliament elected by the people.[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]

Liberal

A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to
exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that
[Type text]

emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders
and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil
liberties).

Constitutional

See: Constitutional democracy

Direct

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary
to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is
more than merely a procedural issue. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:

1. Change constitutional laws,

2. Put forth initiatives, referenda and suggestions for laws,
3. Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or
initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise.

Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies today. This is part of a gradual shift
towards direct democracies. Examples of this include the extensive use of referenda in California with more
than 20 million voters, and (i.e., voting).[59] in Switzerland, where five million voters decide on national
referenda and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the
cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every
March to decide on local issues. No direct democracy is in existence outside the framework of a different
overarching form of government. Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small
communities, usually city-states. The world is yet to see a large, fundamental, working example of direct
democracy as of yet, with most examples being small and weak forms.

See: List of direct democracy parties

Participatory

A Parpolity or Participatory Polity is a theoretical form of democracy that is ruled by a Nested Council
structure. The guiding philosophy is that people should have decision making power in proportion to how much
they are affected by the decision. Local councils of 25–50 people are completely autonomous on issues that
affect only them, and these councils send delegates to higher level councils who are again autonomous
regarding issues that affect only the population affected by that council.

A council court of randomly chosen citizens serves as a check on the tyranny of the majority, and rules on
which body gets to vote on which issue. Delegates can vote differently than their sending council might wish,
but are mandated to communicate the wishes of their sending council. Delegates are recallable at any time.
Referenda are possible at any time via votes of the majority of lower level councils, however, not everything is
a referendum as this is most likely a waste of time. A parpolity is meant to work in tandem with a participatory
economy See: Parpolity

Socialist
[Type text]

"Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners
and professional politicians."
— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary[60]

Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the
dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many
democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace
democracy combined with a representative democracy.

Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they
simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to
eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct
democracy implemented though a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system
ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in
Marxism)

Anarchist

Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a majority-rule is tyrannic or not.
The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that
majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[61] However, anarcho-communist
Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[62] and says "majority rule" is
consistent with anarchism.[63]

Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede
individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's
position on direct democracy.[64] Henry David Thoreau, who did not self-identify as an anarchist but argued for
"a better government"[65] and is cited as an inspiration by some anarchists, argued that people should not be in
the position of ruling others or being ruled when there is no consent.

Iroquois

Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy.[66] Iroquois government
and law was discussed by Benjamin Franklin[66] and Thomas Jefferson.[67] Though some others disagree,[68] some
scholars regard it to have influenced the formation of American representative democracy.[67]

Sortition

Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of choosing decision makers via a
random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the
people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in
Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection.

Consensus

Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It
typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.
[Type text]

Supranational

Qualified majority voting (QMV) is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching
decisions in the European Council of Ministers. This system allocates votes to member states in part according
to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. This might be seen as a form of
representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed rather than directly elected.

Some might consider the "individuals" being democratically represented to be states rather than people, as with
many other international organizations. European Parliament members are democratically directly elected on
the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a supranational democratic institution.

Cosmopolitan

Cosmopolitan democracy, also known as Global democracy or World Federalism is a political system in which
democracy is implemented on a global scale, either directly or through representatives. The supporters of
cosmopolitan democracy argue that it is fundamentally different from any form of national or regional
democracy, because in a Cosmopolitan Democracy, decisions are made by people influenced by them, while in
Regional and National Federal Democracies, decisions often influence people outside the constituency, which
by-definition can not vote.[69]

In a globalised world, argue the supporters of Cosmopolitan Democracy, any attempt to solve global problems
would either be undemocratic or have to implement cosmopolitan democracy. The challenge of cosmopolitan
democracy is to apply some of the values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law, the non-violent
resolutions of conflicts, and the equality among citizens, also beyond the state. This requires to reform
international organizations, first of all the United Nations, and to create new institutions, such as a World
Parliament, which could increase the degree of public control and accountability on international politics.

Cosmopolitan Democracy was promoted, among others, by physicist Albert Einstein,[70] writer Kurt Vonnegut,
columnist George Monbiot, and professors David Held and Daniele Archibugi.[71]

Non-governmental

Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have
been used to govern other kinds of communities and organizations.

 Many non-governmental organizations decide policy and leadership by voting.

 Most trade unions choose their leadership through democratic elections.
 Cooperatives are enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their customers or workers.

Theory
[Type text]

Voting is an important part of the formal democratic process.

Aristotle

Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with
rule by a single person (tyranny or today autocracy/monarchy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad
variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity).[72][73]

For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have
a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two
main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit,
and to be able to live as one pleases.

Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that is what is usually asserted,
implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty, for they assert this as the aim of every
democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is
to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude
must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for
they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are
more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is
sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And
one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one
likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the
claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and
this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.[5]

Conceptions

Among political theorists, there are many contending conceptions of democracy.

 Aggregative democracy uses democratic processes to solicit citizens’ preferences and then aggregate
them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view
hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most
votes gets implemented. There are different variants of this:
o Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of
political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception,
citizens cannot and should not “rule” because, for example, on most issues, most of the time,
they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this
view most famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.[74] Contemporary
proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner.
o Direct democracy, on the other hand, holds that citizens should participate directly, not through
their representatives, in making laws and policies. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied
reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates
citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not
really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.
o Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median
voter – with half to his left and the other half to his right. This is not actually a desirable outcome
as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites
[Type text]

competing for votes. Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a
mediating broker between individual and governments. Anthony Downs laid out this view in his
1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy.[75]
o Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to
binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her
interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the
collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a
certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First
and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which
are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society.
However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty
prevents political participation.[76] Some[who?] see a problem with the wealthy having more
influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some[who?] may see it as
a problem that the majority of the voters decide policy, as opposed to majority rule of the entire
population. This can be used as an argument for making political participation mandatory, like
compulsory voting or for making it more patient (non-compulsory) by simply refusing power to
the government until the full majority feels inclined to speak their minds.
 Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by discussion.
Deliberative democrats contend that laws and policies should be based upon reasons that all citizens can
accept. The political arena should be one in which leaders and citizens make arguments, listen, and
change their minds.
 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.

Republic

Main article: Republicanism

In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or
representative.[77] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative
democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with
a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected
or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[78]

The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time
tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that
what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered
more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats
faction by its very structure.

What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[79] was that the government be "bound by fixed
laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after
writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a
monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[80]

Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers

[Type text]

Initially after the American and French revolutions the question was open whether a democracy, in order to
restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed
meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real
powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and
Bhutan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely
symbolic roles.

Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany,
Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had
lifetime tenure, but eventually these lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful
(as in the United States).

Development of democracy
Several philosophers and researchers outlined historical and social factors supporting the evolution of
democracy. Cultural factors like Protestantism influenced the development of democracy, rule of law, human
rights and political liberty (the faithful elected priests, religious freedom and tolerance has been practiced).

Others mentioned the influence of wealth (e.g. S. M. Lipset, 1959). In a related theory, Ronald Inglehart
suggests that the increase in living standards has convinced people that they can take their basic survival for
granted, and led to increased emphasis on self-expression values, which is highly correlated to democracy.[81]

Recently established theories stress the relevance of education and human capital and within them of cognitive
ability. They increase tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and
cognitive ability are distinguished: a cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better information
processing) and an ethical effect (support of democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself
depends on intelligence (cognitive development being a prerequisite for moral development; Glaeser et al.,
2007; Deary et al., 2008; Rindermann, 2008). [82]

Evidence that is consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges and is sustained has been
hard to come by. Recent statistical analyses have challenged modernization theory by demonstrating that there
is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to emerge when countries become wealthier,
more educated, or less unequal (Albertus and Menaldo, Forthcoming).[83] Neither is there convincing evidence
that increased reliance on oil revenues prevents democratization, despite a vast theoretical literature called "The
Resource Curse" that asserts that oil revenues sever the link between citizen taxation and government
accountability, the key to representative democracy (Haber and Menaldo, Forthcoming).[84] The lack of evidence
for these conventional theories of democratization have led researchers to search for the "deep" determinants of
contemporary political institutions, be they geographical or demographic (Engerman and Sokoloff 1997;
Acemoglu and Robinson 2008; Haber and Menaldo 2010).[85]

Facts
In practice it may not pay the incumbents to conduct fair elections in countries that have no history of
democracy. A study showed that incumbents who rig elections stay in office 2.5 times as long as those who
permit fair elections.[86] Above $2,700 per capita democracies have been found to be less prone to violence, but
below that threshold, more violence.[86] The same study shows that election misconduct is more likely in
countries with low per capita incomes, small populations, rich in natural resources, and a lack of institutional
checks and balances. Sub-Saharan countries, as well as Afghanistan, all tend to fall into that category.[86]
[Type text]

Governments that have frequent elections averaged over the political cycle have significantly better economic
policies than those who don't. This does not apply to governments with fraudulent elections, however.[86]

Opposition to democracy
Main article: Opposition to democracy

This is one attempted measurement of democracy called the Polity IV data series. This map shows the data
presented in the polity IV data series report as of 2003. The lightest countries get a perfect score of 10, while the
darkest countries (Saudi Arabia and Qatar), considered the least democratic, score −10.

Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the existing government. The
implementation of a democratic government within a non-democratic state is typically brought about by
democratic revolution. Monarchy had traditionally been opposed to democracy, and to this day remains opposed
to its abolition, although often political compromise has been reached in the form of shared government.

Currently, opposition to democracy exists most notably in communist states, and absolute monarchies which
appear to have various reasons for opposing the implementation of democracy or democratic reforms.[citation needed]

Criticism of democracy
Main article: Criticism of democracy

Economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on their
premise of the irrational voter. Their argument is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues,
especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly
knowledgeable.

Mob rule

Plato's The Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the narration of Socrates: "Democracy,
which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals
and unequaled alike."[87] In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of government from best to worst. Assuming that the
Republic was intended to be a serious critique of the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only
Kallipolis, an aristocracy led by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the wisest men) is a just form of government.

Moral decay

Traditional Asian cultures, in particular that of Confucian and Islamic thought, believe that democracy results in
the people's distrust and disrespect of governments or religious sanctity. The distrust and disrespect pervades to
[Type text]

all parts of society whenever and wherever there is seniority and juniority, for example between a parent and a
child, a teacher and a student.[citation needed]

Political instability

More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently
elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically
and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh
criticism from the mass media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy
changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth.
For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country
in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority.[88]

Short-termism

This section does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(March 2009)

Democracy is also criticised for frequent elections due to the instability of coalition governments. Coalitions are
frequently formed after the elections in many countries (for example India) and the basis of alliance is
predominantly to enable a viable majority, not an ideological concurrence.

This opportunist alliance not only has the handicap of having to cater to too many ideologically opposing
factions, but it is usually short lived since any perceived or actual imbalance in the treatment of coalition
partners, or changes to leadership in the coalition partners themselves, can very easily result in the coalition
partner withdrawing its support from the government.

Slow governmental response

Democratic institutions work on consensus to decide an issue, which usually takes longer than a unilateral
decision.

Vote buying

This is a simple form of appealing to the short term interests of the voters. This tactic has been known to be
heavily used in north and north-east region of Thailand.[citation needed] The same tactic is widespread in the southern
part of Italy, where also the local mafias take active part into the process.[citation needed]

Another form is commonly called pork barrel where local areas or political sectors are given special benefits but
whose costs are spread among all taxpayers.

Volatility/unsustainability

This section does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(March 2009)
[Type text]

The new establishment of democratic institutions in countries! where the associated practices have as yet been
uncommon or deemed culturally unacceptable, can result in institutions, that are not sustainable in the long
term. One circumstance supporting this outcome may be when it is part of the common perception among the
populace that the institutions were established as a direct result of foreign pressure.

All political parties in Canada are now cautious about criticising of the high level of immigration, because, as
noted by the Globe and Mail, "in the early 1990s, the old Reform Party was branded 'racist' for suggesting that
immigration levels be lowered from 250,000 to 150,000."[89]

Popular rule as a facade

The 20th Century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (independently) argued that democracy
was illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the
unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as opposed to the drive,
initiative and unity of the elites), and that democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of
power from oppression to manipulation.[90]
[Type text]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Distinguished Guests,
. . . Modern history has to an immense degree been a history of advances in democracy, of its development,
consolidation and diffusion. . . . [Democracy] was a bearer not only of freedom and progress but also of
peace. Indeed, there has never been a case of two fully democratic states declaring war on one another. . . .
…[A]nother lesson of the progress of democracy is that it is by no means a process that goes from triumph to
triumph. On the contrary, the history of democracy is also a history of moral compromises,
downfalls, economic crises, and “flights from democracy” in places where it seemed to have sunk
lasting roots. Democracies have had slaves and colonies, voted for Hitler, and refused to die for
Gdansk. In particular, the first half of our century witnessed the political and moral collapse of
many democratic states. . . .
There is no need therefore to use this platform to preach to the converted. If we are here it is, after all,
because, being adherents of democracy, we are also aware of the challenges and threats that confront democracy
and democracies . . . [in] the twenty-first century.
But before I turn to these challenges I would like to pose a simple question, the answer to which is a democratic
credo that I confidently believe is shared by this audience. Why democracy? I think there are five
compelling reasons.
One, human rights. Democracy and its associated political liberties, norms and institutions form the bedrock of
human freedom and the environment that makes possible people’s spiritual and material development. . . .
Two, peace and security - both within states and between nations. . . .
Three, economic development and rising standards of well-being of individuals and whole societies. By creating
opportunities for the creativity and enterprise of individuals and groups democracy promotes material
progress and satisfies people’s basic needs. . . .
Four, justice and solidarity. A characteristic of mature democracies is political sensitivity to the weaker and
poorer members of society. . . .
Five, participation, responsibility and empowerment of the individuals and social groups which form civil society
and thus have a say in shaping government policy priorities, the values embraced in public life and the governing
process itself. . . .
These were the motives which inspired seven countries, Chile, the Czech Republic, India, the Republic of
Korea, Mali, the United States and Poland, when . . . they decided on joint organization of a conference,
“Towards a Community of Democracies.” We were agreed that democracy, civil society, good governance,
and human rights were matters that should engage the attention and cooperation of the international community.
We accept that it is necessary to go a step further than simply affirming the importance of democracy for
Democracy in India 29
human rights, the well-being of societies, and stability and peace in the world. We acknowledge that democracy
is a process, a non-linear one to be sure, and we want to exert an influence on this dynamic process. We
consider it both desirable and essential to involve governments in defining and redefining democracy.
The cause of democracy, its future at the dawn of the third millennium, lies in our hands!
“Democracy: Investing for Peace and Prosperity.” Polish Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremek’s Opening
Remarks to the Community of Democracies Conference. Accessed 10/02/02.