Democracy

Democracy (from Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized:  dēmokratía,

dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the
people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct
democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative
democracy"). Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority
is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and
at different rates in different countries. Features of democracy often
include freedom of assembly, association, property rights, freedom of
religion and speech, inclusiveness and equality, citizenship, consent of
the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental
A person casts their ballot in the second
deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.
round of the 2007 French presidential
The notion of democracy has evolved over time considerably. election.
Throughout history, one can find evidence of direct democracy, in
which communities make decisions through popular assembly. Today,
the dominant form of democracy is representative democracy, where citizens elect government officials to govern on
their behalf such as in a parliamentary or presidential democracy.[2]

Prevalent day-to-day decision making of democracies is the majority rule,[3][4] though other decision making
approaches like supermajority and consensus have also been integral to democracies. They serve the crucial purpose of
inclusiveness and broader legitimacy on sensitive issues—counterbalancing majoritarianism—and therefore mostly
take precedence on a constitutional level. In the common variant of liberal democracy, the powers of the majority are
exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution and a supreme court limit the
majority and protect the minority—usually through securing the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g.
freedom of speech or freedom of association.[5][6]

The term appeared in the 5th century BC in Greek city-states, notably Classical Athens, to mean "rule of the people",
in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite".[7] Western democracy, as distinct
from that which existed in antiquity, is generally considered to have originated in city-states such as those in Classical
Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population
were observed before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity. In virtually all democratic
governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship was initially restricted to an elite class,
which was later extended to all adult citizens. In most modern democracies, this was achieved through the suffrage
movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in autocratic systems
like absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy—oppositions
inherited from ancient Greek philosophy.[8] Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny,
focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[9]
World public opinion strongly favors democratic systems of government.[10] According to the V-Dem Institute and
Economist Intelligence Unit democracy indices, less than half the world's population lives in a democracy as of
2021.[11][12] Democratic backsliding with a rise in hybrid regimes has exceeded democratization since the early to mid
2010s.[11]

Characteristics
Although democracy is generally understood to be defined by voting,[1][6] no consensus exists on a precise definition
of democracy.[13] Karl Popper says that the "classical" view of democracy is simply,[14] "in brief, the theory that
democracy is the rule of the people, and that the people have a right to rule." Kofi Annan states that "there are as many
different forms of democracy as there are democratic nations in
the world."[15] One study identified 2,234 adjectives used to
describe democracy in the English language.[16]

Democratic principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being

equal before the law and having equal access to legislative
processes.[17] For example, in a representative democracy, every
vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to
anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of
its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties The 2021 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy
which are typically protected by a constitution.[18][19] Other Index map
uses of "democracy" include that of direct democracy, in which Full Flawed Hybrid Authoritarian
issues are directly voted on by the constituents. democracies democracies regimes regimes
   9.01–10    7.01–8      3.01–4
One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental    8.01–9    6.01–7  5.01–6    2.01–3
principles: upward control (sovereignty residing at the lowest      0–2.00
levels of authority), political equality, and social norms by which  4.01–5
individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that
reflect the first two principles of upward control and political
equality.[20] Legal equality, political freedom and rule of law[21]
are often identified as foundational characteristics for a well-
functioning democracy.[13]

The term "democracy" is sometimes used as shorthand for

liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative
democracy that may include 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; Democracy's de jure status in the world as of 2022;
and elements of civil society outside the government. Roger only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Brunei,
Scruton argued that democracy alone cannot provide personal Afghanistan, and the Vatican do not claim to be a
and political freedom unless the institutions of civil society are democracy.
also present.[22]

In some countries, notably in the United Kingdom which originated the Westminster system, the dominant principle is
that of parliamentary sovereignty, while maintaining judicial independence.[23][24] In India, parliamentary sovereignty
is subject to the Constitution of India which includes judicial review.[25] Though the term "democracy" is typically
used in the context of a political state, the principles also are applicable to private organisations.

There are many decision-making methods used in democracies, but majority rule is the dominant form. Without
compensation, like legal protections of individual or group rights, political minorities can be oppressed by the "tyranny
of the majority". Majority rule is a competitive approach, opposed to consensus democracy, creating the need that
elections, and generally deliberation, are substantively and procedurally "fair," i.e. just and equitable. In some
countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and internet democracy are
considered important to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own
interests.[26][27]

It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in
the life of their society.[28] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of all the voters,
democracy can also be characterised as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in
which all eligible citizens have an equal say in lawmaking.[29]
Republics, though often associated with democracy because of the shared principle of rule by consent of the governed,
are not necessarily democracies, as republicanism does not specify how the people are to rule.[30] Classically the term
"republic" encompassed both democracies and aristocracies.[31][32] In a modern sense the republican form of
government is a form of government without monarch. Because of this democracies can be republics or constitutional
monarchies, such as the United Kingdom.

History
Democratic assemblies are as old as the human species and are found
throughout human history,[34] but up until the nineteenth century, major
political figures have largely opposed democracy.[35] Republican theorists
linked democracy to small size: as political units grew in size, the likelihood
increased that the government would turn despotic.[36][37] At the same time,
small political units were vulnerable to conquest.[36] Montesquieu wrote, "If a
republic be small, it is destroyed by a foreign force; if it be large, it is ruined by
an internal imperfection."[38] According to Johns Hopkins University political
scientist Daniel Deudney, the creation of the United States, with its large size
and its system of checks and balances, was a solution to the dual problems of Nineteenth-century painting by
size.[36] Philipp Foltz depicting the Athenian
politician Pericles delivering his
Retrospectively different polities, outside of declared democracies, have been famous funeral oration in front of the
described as proto-democratic. Assembly[33]

Origins

The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens
during classical antiquity.[39][40] The word comes from dêmos '(common) people' and krátos 'force/might'.[41] Under
Cleisthenes, what is generally held as the first example of a type of democracy in 508–507 BC was established in
Athens. Cleisthenes is referred to as "the father of Athenian democracy".[42] The first attested use of the word
democracy is found in prose works of the 430s BC, such as Herodotus' Histories, but its usage was older by several
decades, as two Athenians born in the 470s were named Democrates, a new political name—likely in support of
democracy—given at a time of debates over constitutional issues in Athens. Aeschylus also strongly alludes to the
word in his play The Suppliants, staged in c.463 BC, where he mentions "the demos’s ruling hand" [demou kratousa
cheir]. Before that time, the word used to define the new political system of Cleisthenes was probably isonomia,
meaning political equality.[43]

Athenian democracy took the form of a direct democracy, and it had two distinguishing features: the random selection
of ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices,[44] and a legislative
assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens.[45] All eligible citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly,
which set the laws of the city state. However, Athenian citizenship excluded women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι /
métoikoi), and youths below the age of military service.[46][47] Effectively, only 1 in 4 residents in Athens qualified as
citizens. Owning land was not a requirement for citizenship.[48] The exclusion of large parts of the population from the
citizen body is closely related to the ancient understanding of citizenship. In most of antiquity the benefit of citizenship
was tied to the obligation to fight war campaigns.[49]

Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also the
most direct in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule and courts of law controlled the entire political
process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.[50] Even though the rights
of the individual were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense (the ancient Greeks had no word
for "rights"[51]), those who were citizens of Athens enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government but by
living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another
person.[52]
Range voting appeared in Sparta as early as 700 BC. The Spartan ecclesia was an assembly of the people, held once a
month, in which every male citizen of at least 20 years of age could participate. In the assembly, Spartans elected
leaders and cast votes by range voting and shouting (the vote is then decided on how loudly the crowd shouts).
Aristotle called this "childish", as compared with the stone voting ballots used by the Athenian citizenry. Sparta
adopted it because of its simplicity, and to prevent any biased voting, buying, or cheating that was predominant in the
early democratic elections.[53][54]

Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to many aspects of democracy, only a minority of Romans
were citizens with votes in elections for representatives. The votes of the powerful were given more weight through a
system of weighted voting, so most high officials, including members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and
noble families.[55] In addition, the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom was the first case in the Western world of a
polity being formed with the explicit purpose of being a republic, although it didn't have much of a democracy. The
Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries,[56] and today's modern representative
democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models because it was a state in which supreme power was held
by the people and their elected representatives, and which had an elected or nominated leader.

Vaishali, capital city of the Vajjika League (Vrijji mahajanapada) of India, was also considered one of the first
examples of a republic around the 6th century BC.[57][58][59]

Other cultures, such as the Iroquois Nation in the Americas also developed a form of democratic society between 1450
and 1660 (and possibly in 1142[60]), well before contact with the Europeans. This democracy continues to the present
day and is the world's oldest standing representative democracy.[61][62] This indicates that forms of democracy may
have been invented in other societies around the world.[63]

Middle Ages

While most regions in Europe during the Middle Ages were ruled by clergy or feudal lords, there existed various
systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small part of the population. In Scandinavia,
bodies known as things consisted of freemen presided by a lawspeaker. These deliberative bodies were responsible for
settling political questions, and variants included the Althing in Iceland and the Løgting in the Faeroe Islands.[64][65]
The veche, found in Eastern Europe, was a similar body to the Scandinavian thing. In the Roman Catholic Church, the
pope has been elected by a papal conclave composed of cardinals since 1059. The first documented parliamentary
body in Europe was the Cortes of León. Established by Alfonso IX in 1188, the Cortes had authority over setting
taxation, foreign affairs and legislating, though the exact nature of its role remains disputed.[66] The Republic of
Ragusa, established in 1358 and centered around the city of Dubrovnik, provided representation and voting rights to its
male aristocracy only. Various Italian city-states and polities had republic forms of government. For instance, the
Republic of Florence, established in 1115, was led by the Signoria whose members were chosen by sortition. In 10th–
15th century Frisia, a distinctly non-feudal society, the right to vote on local matters and on county officials was based
on land size. The Kouroukan Fouga divided the Mali Empire into ruling clans (lineages) that were represented at a
great assembly called the Gbara. However, the charter made Mali more similar to a constitutional monarchy than a
democratic republic.

The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the

power of kings written into Magna Carta (1215), which explicitly
protected certain rights of the King's subjects and implicitly
supported what became the English writ of habeas corpus,
safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment
with right to appeal.[67][68] The first representative national
assembly in England was Simon de Montfort's Parliament in
1265.[69][70] The emergence of petitioning is some of the earliest
evidence of parliament being used as a forum to address the general
grievances of ordinary people. However, the power to call
parliament remained at the pleasure of the monarch.[71]
Magna Carta, 1215, England
Studies have linked the emergence of parliamentary institutions in Europe during the medieval period to urban
agglomeration and the creation of new classes, such as artisans,[72] as well as the presence of nobility and religious
elites.[73] Scholars have also linked the emergence of representative government to Europe's relative political
fragmentation.[74] Political scientist David Stasavage links the fragmentation of Europe, and its subsequent
democratization, to the manner in which the Roman Empire collapsed: Roman territory was conquered by small
fragmented groups of Germanic tribes, thus leading to the creation of small political units where rulers were relatively
weak and needed the consent of the governed to ward off foreign threats.[75]

In Poland, noble democracy was characterized by an increase in the activity of the middle nobility, which wanted to
increase their share in exercising power at the expense of the magnates. Magnates dominated the most important
offices in the state (secular and ecclesiastical) and sat on the royal council, later the senate. The growing importance of
the middle nobility had an impact on the establishment of the institution of the land sejmik (local assembly), which
subsequently obtained more rights. During the fifteenth and first half of the sixteenth century, sejmiks received more
and more powers and became the most important institutions of local power. In 1454, Casimir IV Jagiellon granted the
sejmiks the right to decide on taxes and to convene a mass mobilization in the Nieszawa Statutes. He also pledged not
to create new laws without their consent.[76]

Modern era

Early modern period

In 17th century England, there was renewed interest in Magna Carta.[77] The
Parliament of England passed the Petition of Right in 1628 which established
certain liberties for subjects. The English Civil War (1642–1651) was fought
between the King and an oligarchic but elected Parliament,[78][79] during which
the idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political
representation during the Putney Debates of 1647.[80] Subsequently, the
Protectorate (1653–59) and the English Restoration (1660) restored more
autocratic rule, although Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 which
strengthened the convention that forbade detention lacking sufficient cause or
evidence. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Bill of Rights was enacted
in 1689 which codified certain rights and liberties and is still in effect. The Bill set
out the requirement for regular elections, rules for freedom of speech in
John Locke expanded on Thomas
Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that, unlike much of
Hobbes's social contract theory
Europe at the time, royal absolutism would not prevail.[81][82] Economic
and developed the concept of
historians Douglass North and Barry Weingast have characterized the institutions
natural rights, the right to private
implemented in the Glorious Revolution as a resounding success in terms of property and the principle of
restraining the government and ensuring protection for property rights.[83] consent of the governed. His
ideas form the ideological basis
Renewed interest in the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, and the Glorious
of liberal democracies today.
Revolution in the 17th century prompted the growth of political philosophy on the
British Isles. Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to articulate a detailed
social contract theory. Writing in Leviathan (1651), Hobbes theorized that individuals living in the state of nature led
lives that were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" and constantly waged a war of all against all. In order to
prevent the occurrence of an anarchic state of nature, Hobbes reasoned that individuals ceded their rights to a strong,
authoritarian government. Later, philosopher and physician John Locke would posit a different interpretation of social
contract theory. Writing in his Two Treatises of Government (1689), Locke posited that all individuals possessed the
inalienable rights to life, liberty and estate (property).[84] According to Locke, individuals would voluntarily come
together to form a state for the purposes of defending their rights. Particularly important for Locke were property
rights, whose protection Locke deemed to be a government's primary purpose.[85] Furthermore, Locke asserted that
governments were legitimate only if they held the consent of the governed. For Locke, citizens had the right to revolt
against a government that acted against their interest or became tyrannical. Although they were not widely read during
his lifetime, Locke's works are considered the founding documents of liberal thought and profoundly influenced the
leaders of the American Revolution and later the French Revolution.[86] His liberal democratic framework of
governance remains the preeminent form of democracy in the world.
In the Cossack republics of Ukraine in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporizhian Sich, the
holder of the highest post of Hetman was elected by the representatives from the country's districts.

In North America, representative government began in Jamestown, Virginia, with the election of the House of
Burgesses (forerunner of the Virginia General Assembly) in 1619. English Puritans who migrated from 1620
established colonies in New England whose local governance was democratic;[87] although these local assemblies had
some small amounts of devolved power, the ultimate authority was held by the Crown and the English Parliament. The
Puritans (Pilgrim Fathers), Baptists, and Quakers who founded these colonies applied the democratic organisation of
their congregations also to the administration of their communities in worldly matters.[88][89][90]

18th and 19th centuries

The first Parliament of Great Britain was established in 1707, after the merger of the
Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland under the Acts of Union. Although
the monarch increasingly became a figurehead,[92] Parliament was only elected by
male property owners, which amounted to 3% of the population in 1780.[93] The first
known British person of African heritage to vote in a general election, Ignatius
Sancho, voted in 1774 and 1780.[94] During the Age of Liberty in Sweden (1718–
1772), civil rights were expanded and power shifted from the monarch to parliament.
The taxed peasantry was represented in parliament, although with little influence, but
commoners without taxed property had no suffrage.

The creation of the short-lived Corsican Republic in 1755 was an early attempt to
adopt a democratic constitution (all men and women above age of 25 could vote).[95]
This Corsican Constitution was the first based on Enlightenment principles and
Statue of Athena, the patron
included female suffrage, something that was not included in most other democracies
goddess of Athens, in front
until the 20th century.
of the Austrian Parliament
In the American colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, often only adult Building. Athena has been
white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, most free black people and used as an international
most women were not extended the franchise. This changed state by state, beginning symbol of freedom and
democracy since at least
with the republican State of New Connecticut, soon after called Vermont, which, on
the late eighteenth
declaring independence of Great Britain in 1777, adopted a constitution modelled on
Pennsylvania's with citizenship and democratic suffrage for males with or without century.[91]

property, and went on to abolish slavery.[96][97] The American Revolution led to the
adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787, the oldest surviving, still active,
governmental codified constitution. The Constitution provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and
liberties for some, but did not end slavery nor extend voting rights in the United States, instead leaving the issue of
suffrage to the individual states.[98] Generally, states limited suffrage to white male property owners and taxpayers.[99]
At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, about 6% of the population was eligible to vote.[100] The
Naturalization Act of 1790 limited U.S. citizenship to whites only.[101] The Bill of Rights in 1791 set limits on
government power to protect personal freedoms but had little impact on judgements by the courts for the first 130 years
after ratification.[102]

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 men in 1792.[103] The Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of 3 May
1791 sought to implement a more effective constitutional monarchy, introduced political equality between townspeople
and nobility, and placed the peasants under the protection of the government, mitigating the worst abuses of serfdom.
In force for less than 19 months, it was declared null and void by the Grodno Sejm that met in 1793.[104][105]
Nonetheless, the 1791 Constitution helped keep alive Polish aspirations for the eventual restoration of the country's
sovereignty over a century later.

However, in the early 19th century, little of democracy—as theory, practice, or even as word—remained in the North
Atlantic world.[106] During this period, slavery remained a social and economic institution in places around the world.
This was particularly the case in the United States, where eight serving presidents had owned slaves, and the last
fifteen slave states kept slavery legal in the American South until the Civil War.[107] Advocating the movement of
black people from the US to locations where they would enjoy greater freedom and equality, in the 1820s the
abolitionist members of the ACS established the settlement of Liberia.[108] The United Kingdom's Slave Trade Act
1807 banned the trade across the British Empire, which was enforced internationally by the Royal Navy under treaties
Britain negotiated with other states.[109] In 1833, the UK passed the Slavery Abolition Act which took effect across
the British Empire, although slavery was legally allowed to continue in areas controlled by the East India Company, in
Ceylon, and in Saint Helena for an additional ten years.[110]

In the United States, the 1828 presidential election was the first in which non-
property-holding white males could vote in the vast majority of states. Voter
turnout soared during the 1830s, reaching about 80% of the adult white male
population in the 1840 presidential election.[111] North Carolina was the last
state to abolish property qualification in 1856 resulting in a close
approximation to universal white male suffrage (however tax-paying
requirements remained in five states in 1860 and survived in two states until
the 20th century).[112][113][114][nb 1] In the 1860 United States Census, the
slave population had grown to four million,[115] and in Reconstruction after
1850s lithograph marking the the Civil War, three constitutional amendments were passed: the 13th
establishment of universal male Amendment (1865) that ended slavery; the 14th Amendment (1869) that gave
suffrage in France in 1848. black people citizenship, and the 15th Amendment (1870) that gave black
males a nominal right to vote.[116][117] Full enfranchisement of citizens was
not secured until after the civil rights movement gained passage by the US
Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[118][119]

The voting franchise in the United Kingdom was expanded and made more uniform in a series of reforms that began
with the Reform Act 1832 and continued into the 20th century, notably with the Representation of the People Act 1918
and the Equal Franchise Act 1928. Universal male suffrage was established in France in March 1848 in the wake of
the French Revolution of 1848.[120] During that year, several revolutions broke out in Europe as rulers were
confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic government.[121]

In 1876 the Ottoman Empire transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one, and held two elections the
next year to elect members to her newly formed parliament.[122] Provisional Electoral Regulations were issued, stating
that the elected members of the Provincial Administrative Councils would elect members to the first Parliament. Later
that year, a new constitution was promulgated, which provided for a bicameral Parliament with a Senate appointed by
the Sultan and a popularly elected Chamber of Deputies. Only men above the age of 30 who were competent in
Turkish and had full civil rights were allowed to stand for election. Reasons for disqualification included holding dual
citizenship, being employed by a foreign government, being bankrupt, employed as a servant, or having "notoriety for
ill deeds". Full universal suffrage was achieved in 1934.[123]

In 1893 the self-governing colony New Zealand became the first country in the world (except for the short-lived 18th-
century Corsican Republic) to establish active universal suffrage by recognizing women as having the right to
vote.[124]

20th and 21st centuries

20th-century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves

of democracy", variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonisation, and
religious and economic circumstances.[125] Global waves of "democratic
regression" reversing democratization, have also occurred in the 1920s and
30s, in the 1960s and 1970s, and in the 2010s.[126][127]

World War I and the dissolution of the autocratic Ottoman and Austro-
The number of nations 1800–2003
Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe,
scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV
most of them at least nominally democratic. In the 1920s democratic
scale, another widely used measure
movements flourished and women's suffrage advanced, but the Great
of democracy
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 non-democratic governments in the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and
Japan, among others.[128]

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The democratisation of the American,
British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[129]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a
model for the later theory of government change. However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of
Germany fell into the non-democratic Soviet-dominated bloc.

The war was followed by decolonisation, 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.[130] Countries that were once
part of the British Empire often adopted the British Westminster system.[131][132] By 1960, the vast majority of
country-states were nominally democracies, although most of the world's populations lived in nominal democracies
that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in "Communist" states and the former
colonies.)

A subsequent wave of democratisation brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many states,
dubbed "third wave of democracy." Portugal, Spain, and several of the military dictatorships in South America
returned to civilian rule in the 1970s and 1980s.[nb 2] This was followed by countries in East and South Asia by the
mid-to-late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of Soviet oppression, contributed to the
collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratisation and liberalisation 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 either part of the European Union or candidate states. In 1986, after the
toppling of the most prominent Asian dictatorship, the only democratic state of its kind at the time emerged in the
Philippines with the rise of Corazon Aquino, who would later be known as the Mother of Asian Democracy.

The liberal trend spread to some states in Africa in the 1990s, most
prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of
liberalisation 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, the Tulip
Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.

According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies

(up from 40 in 1972).[134] According to World Forum on Democracy,
Corazon Aquino taking the Oath of
electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and
Office, becoming the first female
constitute 58.2 percent of the world's population. At the same time liberal
president in Asia
democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of
basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38
percent of the global population.[135] Also in 2007 the United Nations
declared 15 September the International Day of Democracy.[136]

Many countries reduced their voting age to 18 years; the major democracies
began to do so in the 1970s starting in Western Europe and North
America.[137][138][139] Most electoral democracies continue to exclude those
younger than 18 from voting.[140] The voting age has been lowered to 16 for
national elections in a number of countries, including Brazil, Austria, Cuba,
and Nicaragua. In California, a 2004 proposal to permit a quarter vote at 14
Age of democracies at the end of
and a half vote at 16 was ultimately defeated. In 2008, the German parliament
proposed but shelved a bill that would grant the vote to each citizen at birth, to 2015[133]
be used by a parent until the child claims it for themselves.

According to Freedom House, starting in 2005, there have been eleven consecutive years in which declines in political
rights and civil liberties throughout the world have outnumbered improvements,[141] as populist and nationalist
political forces have gained ground everywhere from Poland (under the Law and Justice Party) to the Philippines
(under Rodrigo Duterte).[141][126] In a Freedom House report released in 2018, Democracy Scores for most countries
declined for the 12th consecutive year.[142] The Christian Science Monitor reported that nationalist and populist
political ideologies were gaining ground, at the expense of rule of law, in
countries like Poland, Turkey and Hungary. For example, in Poland, the
President appointed 27 new Supreme Court judges over legal objections from
the European Commission. In Turkey, thousands of judges were removed from
their positions following a failed coup attempt during a government crackdown
.[143]

"Democratic backsliding" in the 2010s were attributed to economic inequality

and social discontent,[145] personalism,[146] poor management of the COVID- Meeting of the Grand Committee of
19 pandemic,[147][148] as well as other factors such as government the Parliament of Finland in 2008
manipulation of civil society, "toxic polarization," foreign disinformation
campaigns,[149] racism and nativism, excessive executive power,[150][151][152]
and decreased power of the opposition.[153] Within English-speaking Western
democracies, "protection-based" attitudes combining cultural conservatism and
leftist economic attitudes were the strongest predictor of support for
authoritarian modes of governance.[154]

Theory Countries autocratizing (red) or

democratizing (blue) substantially
and significantly (2010–2020).
Early theory Countries in grey are substantially
unchanged.[144]
Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/timocracy), with rule by the
few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny or today
autocracy/absolute 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 timocracy).[155][156]

A common view among early and renaissance Republican theorists was that democracy could only survive in small
political communities.[157] Heeding the lessons of the Roman Republic's shift to monarchism as it grew larger or
smaller, these Republican theorists held that the expansion of territory and population inevitably led to tyranny.[157]
Democracy was therefore highly fragile and rare historically, as it could only survive in small political units, which due
to their size were vulnerable to conquest by larger political units.[157] Montesquieu famously said, "if a republic is
small, it is destroyed by an outside force; if it is large, it is destroyed by an internal vice."[157] Rousseau asserted, "It is,
therefore the natural property of small states to be governed as a republic, of middling ones to be subject to a monarch,
and of large empires to be swayed by a despotic prince."[157]

Contemporary theory

Among modern political theorists, there are three contending conceptions of democracy: aggregative democracy,
deliberative democracy, and radical democracy.[158]

Aggregative

The theory of aggregative democracy claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit citizens' preferences
and 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.

Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which
citizens have given 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.[159] Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker,
Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner.
According to the theory of direct democracy, on the other hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their
representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view.
Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socialises and educates citizens, and popular participation can check
powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.

Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter—with half to their
left and the other half to their right. This is not a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and
somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. Anthony Downs suggests that ideological political parties
are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Downs laid out this view in his 1957
book An Economic Theory of Democracy.[160]

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.[161] Similarly, Ronald
Dworkin argues that "democracy is a substantive, not a merely procedural, ideal."[162]

Deliberative

Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by deliberation. Unlike aggregative
democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by
authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is
deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-
maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.[163][164][165] If the decision-makers cannot
reach consensus after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority
rule. Citizens assemblies are considered by many scholars as practical examples of deliberative
democracy,[166][167][168] with a recent OECD report identifying citizens assemblies as an increasingly popular
mechanism to involve citizens in governmental decision-making.[169]

Radical

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.

Measurement of democracy

Indices ranking degree of democracy

Ranking of the degree of democracy are Map of V-Dem Democracy index of Egalitarian Democracy 2020 [170]
published by several organisations Red indicates more authoritarian, blue indicates more democratic.
according to their own various definitions
of the term and relying on different types of
data:[171]

The V-Dem Democracy indices are published each year since 2014 by the Swedish research institute
V-Dem Institute.[172][144] It includes separate indices measuring five different types of democracy:
electoral democracy, liberal democracy, participatory democracy, deliberative democracy, and
egalitarian democracy.[173]
The Democracy Index, published by the UK-based Economist Intelligence Unit, is an assessment of
countries' democracy. Countries are rated to be either Full Democracies, Flawed Democracies, Hybrid
 Regimes, or Authoritarian regimes. Full democracies, flawed democracies, and hybrid regimes are
considered to be democracies, and the authoritarian states are considered to be dictatorial or
oligarchic. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories.[174]
The U.S.-based Polity data series is a widely used data series in political science research. It contains
coded annual information on regime authority characteristics and transitions for all independent states
with greater than 500,000 total population and covers the years 1800–2006. Polity's conclusions about
a state's level of democracy are based on an evaluation of that state's elections for competitiveness,
openness and level of participation. The Polity work is sponsored by the Political Instability Task Force
(PITF) which is funded by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. However, the views expressed in the
reports are the authors' alone and do not represent the views of the US Government.

Indices measuring freedom and human rights frequently include degree of democracy as an element.

Difficulties in measuring democracy

Because democracy is an overarching concept that includes the functioning of diverse institutions which are not easy
to measure, strong limitations exist in quantifying and econometrically measuring the potential effects of democracy or
its relationship with other phenomena—whether inequality, poverty, education etc.[175] Given the constraints in
acquiring reliable data with within-country variation on aspects of democracy, academics have largely studied cross-
country variations. Yet variations between democratic institutions are very large across countries which constrains
meaningful comparisons using statistical approaches. Since democracy is typically measured aggregately as a macro
variable using a single observation for each country and each year, studying democracy faces a range of econometric
constraints and is limited to basic correlations. Cross-country comparison of a composite, comprehensive and
qualitative concept like democracy may thus not always be, for many purposes, methodologically rigorous or
useful.[175]

Dieter Fuchs and Edeltraud Roller suggest that, in order to truly measure the quality of democracy, objective
measurements need to be complemented by "subjective measurements based on the perspective of citizens".[176]
Similarly, Quinton Mayne and Brigitte Geißel also defend that the quality of democracy does not depend exclusively
on the performance of institutions, but also on the citizens' own dispositions and commitment.[177]

Another way of conceiving of the difficulties in measuring democracy is through the debate between minimalist versus
maximalist definitions of democracy. As defended by Adam Przeworski, a minimalist conception of democracy defines
democracy by primarily considering the structure of electoral procedures; such procedures, minimalists argue, are the
essence of democracy.[178] A minimalist’s focus on structure may help to avoid the erroneous incorporation of
noninherent outcomes, such as economic or administrative efficiency, into measures of democracy.[179]

Mainstream measures of democracy, notably Freedom House and Polity IV, deploy a maximalist understanding of
democracy by analyzing indictors that go beyond electoral procedure.[180] These measures attempt to gauge
contestation and inclusion; two features Robert Dahl argued are essential in democracies that successfully promote
accountable governments.[181][182] The democratic rating given by these mainstream measures can vary greatly
depending on the indicators and evidence they deploy.[183] The richness of the definition of democracy utilized by
these measures is important because of the discouraging and alienating power such ratings can have, particularly when
determined by indicators which are biased towards Western democracies.[184]

Types of governmental democracies

Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better
representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.[185][186] However, if any democracy is not structured to
prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from
altering the separation of powers in its favour, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy
the democracy.[187][188][189]
 World's states coloured by form of government1

     Full presidential republics2      Semi-presidential republics2

     Parliamentary republics with an executive president dependent      Parliamentary republics2

on the legislature

     Parliamentary constitutional monarchies      Constitutional monarchies which have a separate head of

government but where royalty still hold significant executive and/or
legislative power

     Absolute monarchies      One-party states

     Countries where constitutional provisions for government have      Countries which do not fit any of the above systems
been suspended (e.g. military dictatorships)

1
This map was compiled according to the Wikipedia list of countries by system of government. See there for sources. 2Several
states constitutionally deemed to be multiparty republics are broadly described by outsiders as authoritarian states. This map
presents only the de jure form of government, and not the de facto degree of democracy.

The following kinds of democracy 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.

Basic forms

Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all
eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have active
participation in the political decision making, for example voting on policy initiatives directly.[190] In most modern
democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly
through elected representatives; this is called a representative democracy.

Direct

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to
relying on intermediaries or representatives. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:

1. Change constitutional laws,

2. Put forth initiatives, referendums 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.

Within modern-day representative governments, certain electoral tools like

referendums, citizens' initiatives and recall elections are referred to as forms of
direct democracy.[191] However, some advocates of direct democracy argue
for local assemblies of face-to-face discussion. Direct democracy as a
government system currently exists in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell A Landsgemeinde (in 2009) of the
Innerrhoden and Glarus,[192] the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous canton of Glarus, an example of
Municipalities,[193] communities affiliated with the CIPO-RFM,[194] the direct democracy in Switzerland
Bolivian city councils of FEJUVE,[195] and Kurdish cantons of Rojava.[196]

Lot system

The use of a lot system, a characteristic of Athenian democracy, is a feature of

some versions of direct democracies. In this system, important governmental
and administrative tasks are performed by citizens picked from a lottery.[197]

Representative
In Switzerland, without needing to
register, every citizen receives ballot
Representative democracy involves the election of government officials by the
papers and information brochures for
people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected
each vote (and can send it back by
then it is called a democratic republic.[198] The most common mechanisms post). Switzerland has a direct
involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. democracy system and votes (and
Most western countries have representative systems.[192] elections) are organised about four
times a year; here, to Berne's citizen
Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a in November 2008 about 5 national, 2
particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate through cantonal, 4 municipal referendums,
proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some and 2 elections (government and
representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such parliament of the City of Berne) to
as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the take care of at the same time.
representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they
retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as how best to do so. Such
reasons have driven criticism upon representative democracy,[199][200] pointing out the contradictions of representation
mechanisms with democracy[201][202]

Parliamentary

Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by or can be dismissed by,
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.[203][204][205][206]

In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister may be dismissed by the legislature at any point in time for not meeting
the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence where the legislature decides
whether or not to remove the Prime Minister from office with majority support for dismissal.[207] In some countries,
the Prime Minister can also call an election at any point in time, typically when the Prime Minister believes that they
are in good favour with the public as to get re-elected. In other parliamentary democracies, extra elections are virtually
never held, a minority government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. An important feature of the
parliamentary democracy is the concept of the "loyal opposition". The essence of the concept is that the second largest
political party (or opposition) opposes the governing party (or coalition), while still remaining loyal to the state and its
democratic principles.

Presidential

Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through an election. The president serves as
both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a
specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. The legislature often has limited ability to remove a president
from office. Elections typically have a fixed date and aren't easily changed. The president has direct control over the
cabinet, specifically appointing the cabinet members.[207]

The executive usually has the responsibility to execute or implement legislation and may have the limited legislative
powers, such as a veto. However, a legislative branch passes legislation and budgets. This provides some measure of
separation of powers. In consequence, however, the president and the legislature may end up in the control of separate
parties, allowing one to block the other and thereby interfere with the orderly operation of the state. This may be the
reason why presidential democracy is not very common outside the Americas, Africa, and Central and Southeast
Asia.[207]

A semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a
president. The particular powers held by the prime minister and president vary by country.[207]

Hybrid or semi-direct

Some modern democracies that are predominantly representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of political
action that are directly democratic. These democracies, which combine elements of representative democracy and
direct democracy, are termed hybrid democracies,[208] semi-direct democracies or participatory democracies.
Examples include Switzerland and some U.S. states, where frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives.

The Swiss confederation is a semi-direct democracy.[192] At the federal level, citizens can propose changes to the
constitution (federal popular initiative) or ask for a referendum to be held on any law voted by the parliament.[192]
Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, to answer 103 questions (during the same
period, French citizens participated in only two referendums).[192] Although in the past 120 years less than 250
initiatives have been put to referendum.[209]

Examples include the extensive use of referendums in the US state of California, which is a state that has more than 20
million voters.[210]

In New England, town meetings are often used, especially in rural areas, to manage local government. This creates a
hybrid form of government, with a local direct democracy and a representative state government. For example, most
Vermont towns hold annual town meetings in March in which town officers are elected, budgets for the town and
schools are voted on, and citizens have the opportunity to speak and be heard on political matters.[211]

Democratic backsliding
Democratic backsliding, also called autocratization,[212][213][a] is the decline in the democratic characteristics of a
political system,[220] and is the opposite of democratization. Democracy is the most popular form of government, with
more than half of the nations in the world being democracies according to a 2020 study. This study examined 165
countries and determined that 98 of them were democracies.[221] Since the 2010s, the world has grown more
authoritarian, with one quarter of the world's population under democratically backsliding hybrid regimes into the
2020s.[221]

Democratization
Democratization, or democratisation, is the transition to a more democratic political regime, including substantive
political changes moving in a democratic direction.[222] It may be a hybrid regime in transition from an authoritarian
regime to a full democracy, a transition from an authoritarian political system to a semi-democracy or transition from a
semi-authoritarian political system to a democratic political system.[223] The opposite process is known as democratic
backsliding or autocratization.

Variants

Constitutional monarchy

Many countries such as the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium,
Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan turned powerful monarchs into
constitutional monarchs (often gradually) with limited or symbolic roles. For example,
in the predecessor states to the United Kingdom, constitutional monarchy began to
emerge and has continued uninterrupted since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and
passage of the Bill of Rights 1689.[23][81] Strongly limited constitutional monarchies,
such as the United Kingdom, have been referred to as crowned republics by writers
such as H. G. Wells.[224]

In other countries, the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as
in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). An
elected person, with or without significant powers, became the head of state in these King Charles III, a
countries. constitutional monarch

Elite upper houses of legislatures, which often had lifetime or hereditary tenure, were
common in many states. Over time, these either had their powers limited (as with the British House of Lords) or else
became elective and remained powerful (as with the Australian Senate).

Republic

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.[225]

The Founding Fathers of the United States often criticised direct democracy, which in their view often came without
the protection of a constitution enshrining inalienable rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No.
10, that what distinguished a direct 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.[226]

Professors Richard Ellis of Willamette University and Michael Nelson of Rhodes College argue that much
constitutional thought, from Madison to Lincoln and beyond, has focused on "the problem of majority tyranny." They
conclude, "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to
ensure that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be trampled by majorities."[227]
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[228] 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, Elizabeth Willing Powel[229] asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a
monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[230]

Liberal democracy

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 moderated by a constitution or laws that emphasise 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).
In a liberal democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that
citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in
significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with formal government
elsewhere.

Socialist

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, industrial, economic and/or workplace democracy
combined with a representative democracy.

Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which is referred to as
parliamentary democracy because of its centralised nature. Because of orthodox Marxists' desire to eliminate the
political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented
through a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council
democracy and begins with workplace democracy.

Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich
landowners and professional politicians.

— Che Guevara, speech in Uruguay, 1961[231]

Anarchist

Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a majority-rule is tyrannic or not. To many
anarchists, the only form of democracy considered acceptable is direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that
the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognised that majority decisions are not binding on
the minority, even when unanimous.[232] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticised individualist
anarchists for opposing democracy,[233] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[234]

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.[235] Henry David Thoreau, who did not self-identify as an anarchist but argued for "a better
government"[236] 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.

Sortition

Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition chooses 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 Renaissance
Florence[237] and is still used in modern jury selection.

Consociational

Consociational democracy was first conceptualized in the 1960s by Dutch-American political scientist Arend Lijphart.
Consociational democracy, also called consociationalism, can be defined as a form of democracy based on power-
sharing formula between elites representing the social groups in the society. According to the founder of the theory of
consociational democracy, Arendt Lijphart, “Consociational democracy means government by elite cartel designed to
turn a democracy with a fragmented political culture into a stable democracy”.[238]
A consociational democracy allows for simultaneous majority votes in two or more ethno-religious constituencies, and
policies are enacted only if they gain majority support from both or all of them.

Consensus democracy

A consensus democracy, in contrast, would not be dichotomous. Instead, decisions would be based on a multi-option
approach, and policies would be enacted if they gained sufficient support, either in a purely verbal agreement or via a
consensus vote—a multi-option preference vote. If the threshold of support were at a sufficiently high level, minorities
would be as it were protected automatically. Furthermore, any voting would be ethno-colour blind.

Supranational

Qualified majority voting 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.

Inclusive

Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for direct democracy in all fields of social life:
political democracy in the form of face-to-face assemblies which are confederated, economic democracy in a stateless,
moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social realm, i.e. self-management in places of work and
education, and ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The theoretical project of inclusive
democracy emerged from the work of political philosopher Takis Fotopoulos in "Towards An Inclusive Democracy"
and was further developed in the journal Democracy & Nature and its successor The International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy.

The basic unit of decision making in an inclusive democracy is the demotic assembly, i.e. the assembly of demos, the
citizen body in a given geographical area which may encompass a town and the surrounding villages, or even
neighbourhoods of large cities. An inclusive democracy today can only take the form of a confederal democracy that is
based on a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face
democratic assemblies in the various demoi. Thus, their role is purely administrative and practical, not one of policy-
making like that of representatives in representative democracy.

The citizen body is advised by experts but it is the citizen body which functions as the ultimate decision-taker.
Authority can be delegated to a segment of the citizen body to carry out specific duties, for example, to serve as
members of popular courts, or of regional and confederal councils. Such delegation is made, in principle, by lot, on a
rotation basis, and is always recallable by the citizen body. Delegates to regional and confederal bodies should have
specific mandates.

Participatory politics

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 may vote differently from how their sending council might wish but are
mandated to communicate the wishes of their sending council. Delegates are recallable at any time. Referendums are
possible at any time via votes of most 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.

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. An important justification for
this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or regional democracies often affect people outside the
constituency who, by definition, cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy, the people who are affected
by decisions also have a say in them.[239]

According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global problems is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan
democracy. The general principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the values and norms of
democracy, including the rule of law; the non-violent resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond the
limits of the state. To be fully implemented, this would require reforming existing international organisations, e.g. the
United Nations, as well as the creation of new institutions such as a World Parliament, which ideally would enhance
public control over, and accountability in, international politics.

Cosmopolitan Democracy has been promoted, among others, by physicist Albert Einstein,[240] writer Kurt Vonnegut,
columnist George Monbiot, and professors David Held and Daniele Archibugi.[241] The creation of the International
Criminal Court in 2003 was seen as a major step forward by many supporters of this type of cosmopolitan democracy.

Creative democracy

Creative Democracy is advocated by American philosopher John Dewey. The main idea about Creative Democracy is
that democracy encourages individual capacity building and the interaction among the society. Dewey argues that
democracy is a way of life in his work of "Creative Democracy: The Task Before Us"[242] and an experience built on
faith in human nature, faith in human beings, and faith in working with others. Democracy, in Dewey's view, is a
moral ideal requiring actual effort and work by people; it is not an institutional concept that exists outside of ourselves.
"The task of democracy", Dewey concludes, "is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in
which all share and to which all contribute".

Guided democracy

Guided democracy is a form of democracy that incorporates regular popular elections, but which often carefully
"guides" the choices offered to the electorate in a manner that may reduce the ability of the electorate to truly determine
the type of government exercised over them. Such democracies typically have only one central authority which is often
not subject to meaningful public review by any other governmental authority. Russian-style democracy has often been
referred to as a "Guided democracy."[243] Russian politicians have referred to their government as having only one
center of power/ authority, as opposed to most other forms of democracy which usually attempt to incorporate two or
more naturally competing sources of authority within the same government.[244]

Non-governmental democracy
Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have been
used to govern other kinds of groups. Many non-governmental organisations decide policy and leadership by voting.
Most trade unions and cooperatives are governed by democratic elections. Corporations are ultimately governed by
their shareholders through shareholder democracy. Corporations may also employ systems such as workplace
democracy to handle internal governance. Amitai Etzioni has postulated a system that fuses elements of democracy
with sharia law, termed Islamocracy.[245] There is also a growing number of Democratic educational institutions such
as Sudbury schools that are co-governed by students and staff.

Shareholder democracy

Shareholder democracy is a concept relating to the governance of corporations by their shareholders. In the United
States, shareholders are typically granted voting rights according to the one share, one vote principle. Shareholders
may vote annually to elect the company's board of directors, who themselves may choose the company's executives.
The shareholder democracy framework may be inaccurate for companies which have different classes of stock that
further alter the distribution of voting rights.

Justification
Several justifications for democracy have been postulated.

Legitimacy

Social contract theory argues that the legitimacy of government is based on consent of the governed, i.e. an election,
and that political decisions must reflect the general will. Some proponents of the theory like Jean-Jacques Rousseau
advocate for a direct democracy on this basis.[246]

Better decision-making

Condorcet's jury theorem is logical proof that if each decision-maker has a better than chance probability of making the
right decision, then having the largest number of decision-makers, i.e. a democracy, will result in the best decisions.
This has also been argued by theories of the wisdom of the crowd.

Economic success

In Why Nations Fail, economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argue that democracies are more
economically successful because undemocratic political systems tend to limit markets and favor monopolies at the
expense of the creative destruction which is necessary for sustained economic growth.

A 2019 study by Acemoglu and others estimated that countries switching to democratic from authoritarian rule had on
average a 20% higher GDP after 25 years than if they had remained authoritarian. The study examined 122 transitions
to democracy and 71 transitions to authoritarian rule, occurring from 1960 to 2010.[247] Acemoglu said this was
because democracies tended to invest more in health care and human capital, and reduce special treatment of regime
allies.[248]

Criticism

Arrow's theorem

Arrow's impossibility theorem suggests that democracy is logically incoherent. This is based on a certain set of criteria
for democratic decision-making being inherently conflicting, i.e. these three "fairness" criteria:

If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's
preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences
between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
 There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's
preference.

Kenneth Arrow summarised the implications of the theorem in a non-mathematical form, stating that "no voting
method is fair", "every ranked voting method is flawed", and "the only voting method that isn't flawed is a
dictatorship".[249]

However, Arrow's formal premises can be considered overly strict, and with their reasonable weakening, the logical
incoherence of democracy looks much less critical.[2]

Inefficiencies

Some economists have criticized the efficiency of democracy, citing the premise of the irrational voter, or a voter who
makes decisions without all of the facts or necessary information in order to make a truly informed decision. Another
argument is that democracy slows down processes because of the amount of input and participation needed in order to
go forward with a decision. A common example often quoted to substantiate this point is the high economic
development achieved by China (a non-democratic one-party ruling communist state) as compared to India (a
democratic multi-party state). According to economists, the lack of democratic participation in countries like China
allows for unfettered economic growth.[250]

On the other hand, Socrates believed that democracy without educated masses (educated in the broader sense of being
knowledgeable and responsible) would only lead to populism being the criteria to become an elected leader and not
competence. This would ultimately lead to a societal demise. This was quoted by Plato in book 10 of The Republic, in
Socrates' conversation with Adimantus.[251] Socrates was of the opinion that the right to vote must not be an
indiscriminate right (for example by birth or citizenship), but must be given only to people who thought sufficiently of
their choice.

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."[252] In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of government from best to worst, and lists democracy as the second worst,
behind only tyranny, which he implies to be the natural outcome of democracy, arguing that in a democracy everyone
puts their own selfish interests ahead of the common good until a tyrant emerges who is strong enough to impose his
interest on everyone else. 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.[253]

Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, warned Joe Biden, U.S. president, via a phone call
that democracy was dying. "Democracies require consensus, and it takes time, and you don't have the time," Xi
Jinping added.[254]

Popular rule as a façade

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.[255] As Louis Brandeis once professed, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.".[256] A study led by Princeton professor Martin Gilens of 1,779 U.S.
government decisions concluded that "elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence."[257]

Mob rule
James Madison critiqued democracy in Federalist No. 10, arguing that a republic is a preferable form of government,
saying: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible
with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths." Madison offered that republics were superior to democracies because republics safeguarded
against tyranny of the majority, stating in Federalist No. 10: "the same advantage which a republic has over a
democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic".[226] Thomas Jefferson
warned that "an elective despotism is not the government we fought for."[258]

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 popular 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 priorities.[259]

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.

Biased media has been accused of causing political instability, resulting in the obstruction of democracy, rather than its
promotion.[260]

Opposition

Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the previously existing government, and many
times it has faced opposition from social elites. The implementation of a democratic government within a non-
democratic state is typically brought about by democratic revolution.

Democratization
Several philosophers and researchers have outlined historical and social factors
seen as supporting the evolution of democracy.

Other commentators have mentioned the influence of economic

development.[261] In a related theory, Ronald Inglehart suggests that improved
living-standards in modern developed countries can convince people that they
can take their basic survival for granted, leading to increased emphasis on self-
expression values, which correlates closely with democracy.[262][263]

Douglas M. Gibler and Andrew Owsiak in their study argued about the Banner in Hong Kong asking for
importance of peace and stable borders for the development of democracy. It democracy, August 2019
has often been assumed that democracy causes peace, but this study shows
that, historically, peace has almost always predated the establishment of
democracy.[264]

Carroll Quigley concludes that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy:[265][266]
Democracy—this scenario—tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to obtain
and use.[267] By the 1800s, guns were the best personal weapons available, and in the United States of America
(already nominally democratic), almost everyone could afford to buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily.
Governments couldn't do any better: it became the age of mass armies of citizen soldiers with guns.[267] Similarly,
Periclean Greece was an age of the citizen soldier and democracy.[268]
Other theories stressed the relevance of education and of human capital—and within them of cognitive ability to
increasing tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and cognitive ability are
distinguished:[269][270][271]

a cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better information-processing)

an ethical effect (support of democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on
intelligence.

Evidence consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by.
Statistical analyses have challenged modernisation 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.[272]
In fact, empirical evidence shows that economic growth and education may not lead to increased demand for
democratization as modernization theory suggests: historically, most countries attained high levels of access to primary
education well before transitioning to democracy.[273] Rather than acting as a catalyst for democratization, in some
situations education provision may instead be used by non-democratic regimes to indoctrinate their subjects and
strengthen their power.[273]

The assumed link between education and economic growth is called into question when analyzing empirical evidence.
Across different countries, the correlation between education attainment and math test scores is very weak (.07). A
similarly weak relationship exists between per-pupil expenditures and math competency (.26). Additionally, historical
evidence suggests that average human capital (measured using literacy rates) of the masses does not explain the onset
of industrialization in France from 1750 to 1850 despite arguments to the contrary.[274] Together, these findings show
that education does not always promote human capital and economic growth as is generally argued to be the case.
Instead, the evidence implies that education provision often falls short of its expressed goals, or, alternatively, that
political actors use education to promote goals other than economic growth and development.

Some scholars have searched for the "deep" determinants of contemporary political institutions, be they geographical
or demographic.[275][276] More inclusive institutions lead to democracy because as people gain more power, they are
able to demand more from the elites, who in turn have to concede more things to keep their position. This virtuous
circle may end up in democracy.

An example of this is the disease environment. Places with different mortality rates had different populations and
productivity levels around the world. For example, in Africa, the tsetse fly—which afflicts humans and livestock—
reduced the ability of Africans to plow the land. This made Africa less settled. As a consequence, political power was
less concentrated.[277] This also affected the colonial institutions European countries established in Africa.[278]
Whether colonial settlers could live or not in a place made them develop different institutions which led to different
economic and social paths. This also affected the distribution of power and the collective actions people could take. As
a result, some African countries ended up having democracies and others autocracies.

An example of geographical determinants for democracy is having access to coastal areas and rivers. This natural
endowment has a positive relation with economic development thanks to the benefits of trade.[279] Trade brought
economic development, which in turn, broadened power. Rulers wanting to increase revenues had to protect property-
rights to create incentives for people to invest. As more people had more power, more concessions had to be made by
the ruler and in many places this process lead to democracy. These determinants defined the structure of the society
moving the balance of political power.[280]

Robert Michels asserts that although democracy can never be fully realised, democracy may be developed
automatically in the act of striving for democracy:
 The peasant in the fable, when on his deathbed, tells his sons that a treasure is buried in the field. After the
old man's death the sons dig everywhere in order to discover the treasure. They do not find it. But their
indefatigable labor improves the soil and secures for them a comparative well-being. The treasure in the
fable may well symbolise democracy.[281]

Disruption
Some democratic governments have experienced sudden state collapse and regime change to an undemocratic form of
government. Domestic military coups or rebellions are the most common means by which democratic governments
have been overthrown.[282] (See List of coups and coup attempts by country and List of civil wars.) Examples include
the Spanish Civil War, the Coup of 18 Brumaire that ended the First French Republic, and the 28 May 1926 coup
d'état which ended the First Portuguese Republic. Some military coups are supported by foreign governments, such as
the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état and the 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Other types of a sudden end to democracy include:

Invasion, for example the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, and the fall of South Vietnam.
Self-coup, in which the leader of the government extra-legally seizes all power or unlawfully extends
the term in office. This can be done through:
Suspension of the constitution by decree, such as with the 1992 Peruvian coup d'état
An "electoral self-coup" using election fraud to obtain re-election of a previously fairly elected
official or political party. For example, in the 1999 Ukrainian presidential election, 2003 Russian
legislative election, and 2004 Russian presidential election.[282]
Royal coup, in which a monarch not normally involved in government seizes all power. For example,
the 6 January Dictatorship, begun in 1929 when King Alexander I of Yugoslavia dismissed parliament
and started ruling by decree.

Democratic backsliding can end democracy in a gradual manner, by increasing emphasis on national security and
eroding free and fair elections, freedom of expression, independence of the judiciary, rule of law. A famous example is
the Enabling Act of 1933, which lawfully ended democracy in Weimar Germany and marked the transition to Nazi
Germany.

Temporary or long-term political violence and government interference can prevent free and fair elections, which erode
the democratic nature of governments. This has happened on a local level even in well-established democracies like
the United States; for example, the Wilmington insurrection of 1898 and African-American disfranchisement after the
Reconstruction era.

Importance of mass media

The theory of democracy relies on the implicit assumption that voters are well informed about social issues, policies,
and candidates so that they can make a truly informed decision. Since the late 20'th century there has been a growing
concern that voters may be poorly informed because the news media are focusing more on entertainment and gossip
and less on serious journalistic research on political issues.[283][284]

The media professors Michael Gurevitch and Jay Blumler have proposed a number of functions that the mass media
are expected to fulfill in a democracy:[285]

Surveillance of the sociopolitical environment

Meaningful agenda setting
Platforms for an intelligible and illuminating advocacy
Dialogue across a diverse range of views
Mechanisms for holding officials to account for how they have exercised power
Incentives for citizens to learn, choose, and become involved
A principled resistance to the efforts of forces outside the media to subvert their independence,
integrity, and ability to serve the audience
 A sense of respect for the audience member, as potentially concerned and able to make sense of his
or her political environment

This proposal has inspired a lot of discussions over whether the news media are actually fulfilling the requirements that
a well functioning democracy requires.[286] Commercial mass media are generally not accountable to anybody but
their owners, and they have no obligation to serve a democratic function.[286][287] They are controlled mainly by
economic market forces. Fierce economic competition may force the mass media to divert themselves from any
democratic ideals and focus entirely on how to survive the competition.[288][289]

The tabloidization and popularization of the news media is seen in an increasing focus on human examples rather than
statistics and principles. There is more focus on politicians as personalities and less focus on political issues in the
popular media. Election campaigns are covered more as horse races and less as debates about ideologies and issues.
The dominating media focus on spin, conflict, and competitive strategies has made voters perceive the politicians as
egoists rather than idealists. This fosters mistrust and a cynical attitude to politics, less civic engagement, and less
interest in voting.[290][291][292] The ability to find effective political solutions to social problems is hampered when
problems tend to be blamed on individuals rather than on structural causes.[291] This person-centered focus may have
far-reaching consequences not only for domestic problems but also for foreign policy when international conflicts are
blamed on foreign heads of state rather than on political and economic structures.[293][294] A strong media focus on
fear and terrorism has allowed military logic to penetrate public institutions, leading to increased surveillance and the
erosion of civil rights.[295]

The responsiveness and accountability of the democratic system is compromised when lack of access to substantive,
diverse, and undistorted information is handicapping the citizens' capability of evaluating the political process.[287][292]
The fast pace and trivialization in the competitive news media is dumbing down the political debate. Thorough and
balanced investigation of complex political issues does not fit into this format. The political communication is
characterized by short time horizons, short slogans, simple explanations, and simple solutions. This is conducive to
political populism rather than serious deliberation.[287][295]

Commercial mass media are often differentiated along the political spectrum so that people can hear mainly opinions
that they already agree with. Too much controversy and diverse opinions are not always profitable for the commercial
news media.[296] Political polarization is emerging when different people read different news and watch different TV
channels. This polarization has been worsened by the emergence of the social media that allow people to communicate
mainly with groups of like-minded people, the so-called echo chambers.[297] Extreme political polarization may
undermine the trust in democratic institutions, leading to erosion of civil rights and free speech and in some cases even
reversion to autocracy.[298]

Many media scholars have discussed non-commercial news media with public service obligations as a means to
improve the democratic process by providing the kind of political contents that a free market does not
provide.[299][300] The World Bank has recommended public service broadcasting in order to strengthen democracy in
developing countries. These broadcasting services should be accountable to an independent regulatory body that is
adequately protected from interference from political and economic interests.[301] Public service media have an
obligation to provide reliable information to voters. Many countries have publicly funded radio and television stations
with public service obligations, especially in Europe and Japan,[302] while such media are weak or non-existent in
other countries including the USA.[303] Several studies have shown that the stronger the dominance of commercial
broadcast media over public service media, the less the amount of policy-relevant information in the media and the
more focus on horse race journalism, personalities, and the pecadillos of politicians. Public service broadcasters are
characterized by more policy-relevant information and more respect for journalistic norms and impartiality than the
commercial media. However, the trend of deregulation has put the public service model under increased pressure from
competition with commercial media.[302][304][305]

The emergence of the internet and the social media has profoundly altered the conditions for political communication.
The social media have given ordinary citizens easy access to voice their opinion and share information while
bypassing the filters of the large news media. This is often seen as an advantage for democracy.[306] The new
possibilities for communication have fundamentally changed the way social movements and protest movements
operate and organize. The internet and social media have provided powerful new tools for democracy movements in
developing countries and emerging democracies, enabling them to bypass censorship, voice their opinions, and
organize protests.[307][308]
A serious problem with the social media is that they have no truth filters. The established news media have to guard
their reputation as trustworthy, while ordinary citizens may post unreliable information.[307] In fact, studies show that
false stories are going more viral than true stories.[309][310] The proliferation of false stories and conspiracy theories
may undermine public trust in the political system and public officials.[310][298]

Reliable information sources are essential for the democratic process. Less democratic governments rely heavily on
censorship, propaganda, and misinformation in order to stay in power, while independent sources of information are
able to undermine their legitimacy.[311]

See also
Politics portal

Consent of the governed History of democracy

Democratic deficit Horseshoe theory
Democracy in Chola Dynasty Industrial democracy
Democracy Index Mathematical theory of democracy
Democracy Ranking Meritocracy
Democratic backsliding Parliament in the Making
Democratic peace theory Power to the people
Democratic Socialism Socialism
Democratization Territorial peace theory
E-democracy The Establishment
Economic democracy Types of democracy
Empowered democracy Spatial citizenship
Energy democracy Statism
Foucault–Habermas debate Workplace democracy
Good governance

Footnotes
1. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868 altered the way each state is
represented in the House of Representatives. It counted all residents for apportionment including
slaves, overriding the three-fifths compromise, and reduced a state's apportionment if it wrongfully
denied males over the age of 21 the right to vote; however, this was not enforced in practice. Some
poor white men remained excluded at least until passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For state
elections, it was not until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
(1966) that all state poll taxes were unconstitutional as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. This removed a burden on the poor.
2. Portugal in 1974, Spain in 1975, Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and
Chile in the early 1990s.

a. Other names include democratic decline,[214] de-democratization,[215] democratic erosion,[216]

democratic decay,[217] democratic recession,[218] democratic regression,[214] and democratic
deconsolidation.[219]

References
1. "Democracy" (https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195148909.001.0001/acref-9
780195148909-e-241). Oxford University Press. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
 2. Tangian, Andranik (2020). Analytical Theory of Democracy: History, Mathematics and Applications.
Studies in Choice and Welfare. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39691-6 (https://
doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-030-39691-6). ISBN 978-3-030-39690-9. S2CID 216190330 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:216190330).
3. "Definition of DEMOCRACY" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy). www.merriam-
webster.com. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
4. Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government: a Translation into Modern English. Quote: "There is no
practical alternative to majority political rule – i.e., to taking the consent of the majority as the act of the
whole and binding every individual. It would be next to impossible to obtain the consent of every
individual before acting collectively ... No rational people could desire and constitute a society that had
to dissolve straightaway because the majority was unable to make the final decision and the society
was incapable of acting as one body."There is no practical alternative to majority political rule
%E2%80%93 i.e., to taking the consent of the majority as the act of the whole and binding every
individual." Google Books (https://books.google.com/books?id=d_4BGe7-pFIC&pg=PR9).
5. Oxford English Dictionary: "democracy".
6. Watkins, Frederick (1970). "Democracy". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 7 (Expo '70 hardcover ed.).
William Benton. pp. 215–23. ISBN 978-0-85229-135-1.
7. Wilson, N.G. (2006). Encyclopedia of ancient Greece. New York: Routledge. p. 511. ISBN 0-415-
97334-1.
8. Barker, Ernest (1906). "Chapter VII, Section 2". The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=1HUrAAAAYAAJ). G.P. Putnam's Sons.
9. Jarvie, 2006, pp. 218–19
10. Anderson, Christopher J.; Bol, Damien; Ananda, Aurelia (2021). "Humanity's Attitudes about
Democracy and Political Leaders" (https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab056). Public Opinion Quarterly. 85
(4): 957–986. doi:10.1093/poq/nfab056 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fpoq%2Fnfab056). ISSN 0033-
362X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0033-362X). PMC 8754486 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti
cles/PMC8754486). PMID 35035302 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35035302).
11. V-Dem Institute DEMOCRACY REPORT 2022: Autocratization Changing Nature? (https://www.v-dem.
net/documents/19/dr_2022_ipyOpLP.pdf) pp. 6, 13, 18: "Dictatorships are on the rise and harbor 70%
of the world population – 5.4 billion people."
12. Economic Intelligence Unit Democracy Index, 2022, p. 4: "According to our measure of democracy,
less than half (45.7%) of the world’s population now live in a democracy of some sort, a significant
decline from 2020 (49.4%)."
13. Staff writer (22 August 2007). "Liberty and justice for some" (http://www.economist.com/markets/rankin
gs/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438). The Economist. Economist Group.
14. Popper, Karl (23 April 1988). "The open society and its enemies revisited", The Economist (2016
reprint (https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-soci
ety-and-its-enemies-revisited)).
15. Annan, Kofi, "Democracy (https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy)", Council of Europe.
16. Gagnon, Jean-Paul (1 June 2018). "2,234 Descriptions of Democracy" (http://berghahnjournals.com/vi
ew/journals/democratic-theory/5/1/dt050107.xml). Democratic Theory. 5 (1): 92–113.
doi:10.3167/dt.2018.050107 (https://doi.org/10.3167%2Fdt.2018.050107). ISSN 2332-8894 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/issn/2332-8894). S2CID 149825810 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:149825
810).
17. "direct democracy | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/direct-de
mocracy). www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2 February 2022.
18. Dahl, Robert A.; Shapiro, Ian; Cheibub, José Antônio (2003). The democracy sourcebook. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-54147-3. Details. (https://books.google.com/books?id=B8
THIuSkiqgC)
19. Hénaff, Marcel; Strong, Tracy B. (2001). Public space and democracy. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-3388-3.
20. Kimber, Richard (September 1989). "On democracy". Scandinavian Political Studies. 12 (3): 201, 199–
219. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1989.tb00090.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9477.1989.tb00090.
x). Full text. (https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/scandinavian_political_studies/article/view/13057/24875)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161017170633/https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/scandinavian_p
olitical_studies/article/view/13057/24875) 17 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine
21. Diamond, Larry; Morlino, Leonardo (25 November 2005). Assessing the Quality of Democracy (https://
books.google.com/books?id=-eXJMXnraPQC&pg=PA3). JHU Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8287-6 – via
Google Books.
22. Scruton, Roger (9 August 2013). "A Point of View: Is democracy overrated?" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/ne
ws/magazine-23607302). BBC News. BBC.
23. Kopstein, Jeffrey; Lichbach, Mark; Hanson, Stephen E., eds. (2014). Comparative Politics: Interests,
Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order (https://books.google.com/books?id=L2jwAwAA
QBAJ&pg=PA38) (4, revised ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–39. ISBN 978-1-139-99138-4.
24. "Parliamentary sovereignty" (http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/). UK Parliament.
Retrieved 18 August 2014; "Independence" (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciar
y-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/). Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.
Retrieved 9 November 2014.
25. Daily Express News (2 August 2013). "All-party meet vows to uphold Parliament supremacy" (http://ne
windianexpress.com/nation/All-party-meet-vows-to-uphold-Parliament-supremacy/2013/08/02/article1
713808.ece). The New Indian Express. Express Publications (Madurai) Limited. Retrieved 18 August
2013.
26. Barak, Aharon (2 November 2006). The Judge in a Democracy (https://books.google.com/books?id=3
HX7mAbjGOYC&pg=PA27). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12017-1 – via Google
Books.
27. Kelsen, Hans (October 1955). "Foundations of democracy". Ethics. 66 (1): 1–101. doi:10.1086/291036
(https://doi.org/10.1086%2F291036). JSTOR 2378551 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2378551).
S2CID 144699481 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144699481).
28. Nussbaum, Martha (2000). Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge
New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00385-8.
29. Snyder, Richard; Samuels, David (2006), "Devaluing the vote in Latin America", in Diamond, Larry;
Plattner, Marc F. (eds.), Electoral systems and democracy, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
p. 168, ISBN 978-0-8018-8475-7.
30. R. R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution: Political History of Europe and America, 1760–
1800 (1959)
31. Montesquieu, Spirit of Law, Bk. II, ch. 2–3.
32. Everdell, William R. (2000) [1983]. The end of kings: a history of republics and republicans (https://arch
ive.org/details/endofkingshistor00ever) (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-
226-22482-4.
33. "Pericles' Funeral Oration" (http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/detail.php?ID=131618). the-
athenaeum.org.
34. Graeber 2013, p. 184.
35. Graeber 2013, pp. 168--169.
36. Deudney, Daniel (9 November 2008). Bounding Power (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9
780691138305/bounding-power). ISBN 978-0-691-13830-5.
37. Thorhallsson, Baldur; Steinsson, Sverrir (2017), "Small State Foreign Policy" (https://osf.io/7mrj9/),
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Oxford University Press,
doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.484 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Facrefore%2F97801902286
37.013.484), ISBN 978-0-19-022863-7
38. "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Law: Book 9" (https://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_09.htm).
www.constitution.org. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
39. John Dunn, Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC – 1993 AD, Oxford University Press, 1994,
ISBN 0-19-827934-5
40. Raaflaub, Ober & Wallace 2007, p. .
41. Luciano Canfora, La democrazias:Storia di un'ideologia, Laterza (2004) 2018 pp.12-13
42. R. Po-chia Hsia, Lynn Hunt, Thomas R. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, and Bonnie G. Smith, The
Making of the West, Peoples and Cultures, A Concise History, Volume I: To 1740 (Boston and New
York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007), 44.
43. Kurt A. Raaflaub, Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, pp. 108, 109.
44. Aristotle Book 6
45. Grinin, Leonid E. (2004). The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues (http://www.socionauki.ru/boo
k/early_state_en/). Uchitel' Publishing House.
46. Davies, John K. (1977). "Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and the Alternatives". The
Classical Journal. 73 (2): 105–121. ISSN 0009-8353 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0009-8353).
JSTOR 3296866 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3296866).
47. "Women and Family in Athenian Law" (http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_women_and_famil
y?page=4). www.stoa.org. Retrieved 1 March 2018.
48. Manville, Philip Brook (14 July 2014). The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=RBcABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA94). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-6083-8.
49. Susan Lape, Reproducing Athens: Menander's Comedy, Democratic Culture, and the Hellenistic City,
Princeton University Press, 2009, p. 4, ISBN 1-4008-2591-1
50. Raaflaub, Ober & Wallace 2007, p. 5.
51. Ober & Hedrick 1996, p. 107.
52. Clarke & Foweraker 2001, pp. 194–201.
53. "Full historical description of the Spartan government" (http://rangevoting.org/SpartaBury.html).
Rangevoting.org. Retrieved 28 September 2013.
54. Terrence A. Boring, Literacy in Ancient Sparta, Leiden Netherlands (1979). ISBN 90-04-05971-7
55. "Ancient Rome from the earliest times down to 476 A.D" (http://annourbis.com/Ancient-Rome/8rome10.
html). Annourbis.com. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
56. Livy & De Sélincourt 2002, p. 34
57. Bindloss, Joe; Sarina Singh (2007). India: Lonely planet Guide (https://books.google.com/books?id=T
7ZHUhSEleYC&q=Vaishali&pg=PA556). Lonely Planet. p. 556. ISBN 978-1-74104-308-2.
58. Hoiberg, Dale; Indu Ramchandani (2000). Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1-5 (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=DPP7O3nb3g0C&q=Vaishali&pg=PA208). Popular Prakashan. p. 208. ISBN 0-
85229-760-2.
59. Kulke, Hermann; Dietmar Rothermund (2004). A history of India (https://books.google.com/books?id=T
PVq3ykHyH4C&q=Vaishali&pg=PA57). Routledge. p. 57. ISBN 0-415-32919-1.
60. Mann & Fields 1997.
61. Lightfoot, Sheryl R. (2021). "Decolonizing Self-Determination: Haudenosaunee Passports and
Negotiated Sovereignty". European Journal of International Relations. 27 (4): 978.
doi:10.1177/13540661211024713 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F13540661211024713). ISSN 1354-
0661 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1354-0661). S2CID 237710260 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:237710260).
62. Communications. "Government" (https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/government/).
Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Retrieved 19 May 2022.
63. Graymont, Barbara (1972). The Iroquois in the American Revolution (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/194
977) ([1st ed.] ed.). [Syracuse, N.Y.]: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0-8156-0083-6. OCLC 194977
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/194977).
64. Dahl, Robert A. (1 October 2008). On Democracy: Second Edition (https://books.google.com/books?id
=d2osDwAAQBAJ&q=althing+democracy&pg=PR7). Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-23332-2.
65. Fladmark, J. M.; Heyerdahl, Thor (17 November 2015). Heritage and Identity: Shaping the Nations of
the North (https://books.google.com/books?id=mG7vCgAAQBAJ&q=althing+democracy&pg=PT30).
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-74224-1.
66. O'Callaghan, Joseph F. (1989). "The Cortes and Taxation" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv513b8x.12).
The Cortes of Castile-Leon, 1188–1350: 130–151. doi:10.9783/9781512819571 (https://doi.org/10.978
3%2F9781512819571). ISBN 9781512819571. JSTOR j.ctv513b8x.12 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ct
v513b8x.12).
67. "Magna Carta: an introduction" (http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction).
The British Library. Retrieved 28 January 2015. "Magna Carta is sometimes regarded as the
foundation of democracy in England. ...Revised versions of Magna Carta were issued by King Henry III
(in 1216, 1217 and 1225), and the text of the 1225 version was entered onto the statute roll in 1297.
...The 1225 version of Magna Carta had been granted explicitly in return for a payment of tax by the
whole kingdom, and this paved the way for the first summons of Parliament in 1265, to approve the
granting of taxation."
68. "Citizen or Subject?" (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/making
_history_citizen.htm). The National Archives. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
69. Jobson, Adrian (2012). The First English Revolution: Simon de Montfort, Henry III and the Barons' War
(https://books.google.com/books?id=9gHWamp-TLoC&pg=PA174). Bloomsbury. pp. 173–74.
ISBN 978-1-84725-226-5.
70. "Simon de Montfort: The turning point for democracy that gets overlooked" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/new
s/magazine-30849472). BBC. 19 January 2015. Retrieved 19 January 2015; "The January Parliament
and how it defined Britain" (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11355822/The-January-Parliam
ent-and-how-it-defined-Britain.html). The Telegraph. 20 January 2015. Archived (https://ghostarchive.o
rg/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11355822/The-January-Parliament-an
d-how-it-defined-Britain.html) from the original on 10 January 2022. Retrieved 28 January 2015.
71. "Origins and growth of Parliament" (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_s
ubject/origins.htm). The National Archives. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
72. Abramson, Scott F.; Boix, Carles (2019). "Endogenous Parliaments: The Domestic and International
Roots of Long-Term Economic Growth and Executive Constraints in Europe". International
Organization. 73 (4): 793–837. doi:10.1017/S0020818319000286 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS00208
18319000286). ISSN 0020-8183 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0020-8183). S2CID 211428630 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:211428630).
73. Møller, Jørgen (2014). "Why Europe Avoided Hegemony: A Historical Perspective on the Balance of
Power". International Studies Quarterly. 58 (4): 660–670. doi:10.1111/isqu.12153 (https://doi.org/10.11
11%2Fisqu.12153).
74. Cox, Gary W. (2017). "Political Institutions, Economic Liberty, and the Great Divergence" (https://doi.or
g/10.1017%2FS0022050717000729). The Journal of Economic History. 77 (3): 724–755.
doi:10.1017/S0022050717000729 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0022050717000729). ISSN 0022-
0507 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-0507).
75. Stasavage, David (11 May 2016). "Representation and Consent: Why They Arose in Europe and Not
Elsewhere" (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-polisci-043014-105648). Annual Review of Political
Science. 19 (1): 145–162. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-043014-105648 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fan
nurev-polisci-043014-105648). ISSN 1094-2939 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1094-2939).
S2CID 14393625 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14393625).
76. Lukowski, Jerzy; Zawadzki, Hubert (January 2019). A Concise History of Poland (3rd ed.). Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 9781108333993.
77. "From legal document to public myth: Magna Carta in the 17th century" (https://www.bl.uk/magna-cart
a/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century). The British Library.
Retrieved 16 October 2017; "Magna Carta: Magna Carta in the 17th Century" (https://web.archive.org/
web/20180925053248/https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-mag
na-carta-in-the-17th-century). The Society of Antiquaries of London. Archived from the original (https://
www.sal.org.uk/events/2015/06/magna-carta-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century/) on 25 September
2018. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
78. "Origins and growth of Parliament" (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_s
ubject/origins.htm). The National Archives. Retrieved 7 April 2015.
79. "Rise of Parliament" (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/rise_parliament/citizens
hip2.htm). The National Archives. Retrieved 7 April 2015.
80. "Putney debates" (https://www.bl.uk/taking-liberties/articles/putney-debates). The British Library.
Retrieved 22 December 2016.
81. "Britain's unwritten constitution" (http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution).
British Library. Retrieved 27 November 2015. "The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which
established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown.... The Bill of Rights (1689) then settled the
primacy of Parliament over the monarch's prerogatives, providing for the regular meeting of
Parliament, free elections to the Commons, free speech in parliamentary debates, and some basic
human rights, most famously freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment'."
82. "Constitutionalism: America & Beyond" (https://web.archive.org/web/20141024130317/http://www.ait.o
rg.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html). Bureau of International Information Programs
(IIP), U.S. Department of State. Archived from the original (http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/De
mopaper/dmpaper2.html) on 24 October 2014. Retrieved 30 October 2014. "The earliest, and perhaps
greatest, victory for liberalism was achieved in England. The rising commercial class that had
supported the Tudor monarchy in the 16th century led the revolutionary battle in the 17th and
succeeded in establishing the supremacy of Parliament and, eventually, of the House of Commons.
What emerged as the distinctive feature of modern constitutionalism was not the insistence on the idea
that the king is subject to law (although this concept is an essential attribute of all constitutionalism).
This notion was already well established in the Middle Ages. What was distinctive was the
establishment of effective means of political control whereby the rule of law might be enforced. Modern
constitutionalism was born with the political requirement that representative government depended
upon the consent of citizen subjects... However, as can be seen through provisions in the 1689 Bill of
Rights, the English Revolution was fought not just to protect the rights of property (in the narrow sense)
but to establish those liberties which liberals believed essential to human dignity and moral worth. The
"rights of man" enumerated in the English Bill of Rights gradually were proclaimed beyond the
boundaries of England, notably in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and in the
French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789."
83. North, Douglass C.; Weingast, Barry R. (1989). "Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of
Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England". The Journal of Economic
History. 49 (4): 803–832. doi:10.1017/S0022050700009451 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0022050700
009451). ISSN 1471-6372 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1471-6372). S2CID 3198200 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:3198200).
84. Locke, John (1988) [1689]. Laslett, Peter (ed.). Two Treatises of Government (https://archive.org/detail
s/twotreatisesofgo00john/page/). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sec. 87, 123, 209, 222
(https://archive.org/details/twotreatisesofgo00john/page/). ISBN 0-521-35448-X.
85. Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government: a Translation into Modern English. Quote: "Government
has no other end, but the preservation of property. There is no practical alternative to majority political
rule %E2%80%93 i.e., to taking the consent of the majority as the act of the whole and binding every
individual." Google Books (https://books.google.com/books?id=d_4BGe7-pFIC&pg=PR9).
86. Curte, Merle (1937). "The Great Mr. Locke: America's Philosopher, 1783–1861". The Huntington
Library Bulletin (11): 107–151. doi:10.2307/3818115 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3818115).
ISSN 1935-0708 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1935-0708). JSTOR 3818115 (https://www.jstor.org/sta
ble/3818115).
87. Tocqueville, Alexis de (2003). Democracy in America. Barnes & Noble. pp. 11, 18–19. ISBN 0-7607-
5230-3.
88. Allen Weinstein and David Rubel (2002), The Story of America: Freedom and Crisis from Settlement to
Superpower, DK Publishing, Inc., New York, ISBN 0-7894-8903-1, p. 61
89. Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, pp. 63–65, 74–75, 102–05, 114–15
90. Christopher Fennell (1998), Plymouth Colony Legal Structure (http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/c
cflaw.html)
91. Deacy, Susan (2008). Athena (https://books.google.com/books?id=kIiCAgAAQBAJ&q=Athena+and+A
res+Darmon&pg=PA163). London and New York: Routledge. pp. 145–49. ISBN 978-0-415-30066-7.
92. "Citizenship 1625–1789" (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/rise_parliament/citi
zenship2.htm). The National Archives. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
93. "Getting the vote" (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/gettin
g_vote.htm). The National Archives. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
 94. "Record of Ignatius Sancho's vote in the general election, October 1774" (https://www.bl.uk/collection-i
tems/record-of-ignatius-sanchos-vote-in-the-general-election-october-1774). British Library. Retrieved
2 October 2020.
95. Gregory, Desmond (1985). The ungovernable rock: a history of the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom and its
role in Britain's Mediterranean strategy during the Revolutionary War, 1793–1797. London: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-8386-3225-3.
96. "Voting in Early America" (http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm). Colonial
Williamsburg. Spring 2007. Retrieved 21 April 2015.
97. Dinkin, Robert (1982). Voting in Revolutionary America: A Study of Elections in the Original Thirteen
States, 1776–1789 (https://archive.org/details/votinginrevoluti00dink/page/37). USA: Greenwood
Publishing. pp. 37–42 (https://archive.org/details/votinginrevoluti00dink/page/37). ISBN 978-0-313-
23091-2.
98. Ratcliffe, Donald (Summer 2013). "The Right to Vote and the Rise of Democracy, 1787–1828" (https://j
er.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf) (PDF). Journal of the Early Republic. 33 (2): 231.
doi:10.1353/jer.2013.0033 (https://doi.org/10.1353%2Fjer.2013.0033). S2CID 145135025 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145135025).
99. Ratcliffe, Donald (Summer 2013). "The Right to Vote and the Rise of Democracy, 1787-1828" (https://j
er.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf) (PDF). Journal of the Early Republic. 33 (2): 225–
229. doi:10.1353/jer.2013.0033 (https://doi.org/10.1353%2Fjer.2013.0033). S2CID 145135025 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145135025).
100. "Expansion of Rights and Liberties - The Right of Suffrage" (https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144
856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html). Online Exhibit: The
Charters of Freedom. National Archives. Archived from the original (https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/c
harters/charters_of_freedom_13.html) on 6 July 2016. Retrieved 21 April 2015.
101. Schultz, Jeffrey D. (2002). Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: African Americans and
Asian Americans (https://books.google.com/books?id=WDV40aK1T-sC&pg=PA284). p. 284.
ISBN 978-1-57356-148-8. Retrieved 8 October 2015.
102. "The Bill Of Rights: A Brief History" (https://www.aclu.org/bill-rights-brief-history). ACLU. Retrieved
21 April 2015.
103. "The French Revolution II" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080827213104/http://mars.wnec.edu/~grem
pel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev892.html). Mars.wnec.edu. Archived from the original (http://mars.wnec.ed
u/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev892.html) on 27 August 2008. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
104. Norman Davies (15 May 1991). The Third of May 1791 (https://web.archive.org/web/20190905232450/
https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/uploads/files/Working-Papers-Archives/CEE_24.pdf) (PDF). Minda de
Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University. Archived from the original (https://ces.fas.h
arvard.edu/uploads/files/Working-Papers-Archives/CEE_24.pdf) (PDF) on 5 September 2019.
Retrieved 5 September 2019.
105. Jan Ligeza (2017). Preambuła Prawa [The Preamble of Law] (in Polish). Polish Scientific Publishers
PWN. p. 12. ISBN 978-83-945455-0-5.
106. Michael Denning (2004). Culture in the Age of Three Worlds (https://books.google.com/books?id=GAo
Wojy41BkC&pg=PA212). Verso. p. 212. ISBN 978-1-85984-449-6. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
107. Calore, Paul (2008). The Causes of the Civil War: The Political, Cultural, Economic and Territorial
Disputes between North and South. McFarland. p. 10.
108. "Background on conflict in Liberia" (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=731&issue_id=75)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20070214051143/http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=7
31&issue_id=75) 14 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Friends Committee on National
Legislation, 30 July 2003
109. Lovejoy, Paul E. (2000). Transformations in slavery: a history of slavery in Africa (https://archive.org/det
ails/transformationsi0000love/page/290) (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 290 (http
s://archive.org/details/transformationsi0000love/page/290). ISBN 978-0-521-78012-4.
110. "1834: The End of Slavery? | Historic England" (https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-herita
ge/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/sites-of-memory/ending-slavery/1834-the-end-of-slavery/).
historicengland.org.uk.
111. William G. Shade, "The Second Party System". in Paul Kleppner, et al. Evolution of American
Electoral Systems (1983) pp 77–111
112. Engerman, Stanley L.; Sokoloff, Kenneth L. (2005). "The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New
World" (https://web.archive.org/web/20201111211244/http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/file
s/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sokoloff-050406.pdf) (PDF). pp. 14–16. Archived from the
original (http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/soko
loff-050406.pdf) (PDF) on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
113. Scher, Richard K. (2015). The Politics of Disenfranchisement: Why is it So Hard to Vote in America? (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?id=POzqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR9). Routledge. p. viii–ix. ISBN 978-1-317-
45536-3.
114. "Civil Rights in America: Racial Voting Rights" (https://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_Voti
ngRights.pdf) (PDF). A National Historic Landmarks Theme Study. 2009. Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20150702010008/http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf) (PDF)
from the original on 2 July 2015.
115. "Introduction – Social Aspects of the Civil War" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070714073725/http://w
ww.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm). Itd.nps.gov. Archived from the original (http://www.
itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm) on 14 July 2007. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
116. Gillette, William (1986). "Fifteenth Amendment: Framing and ratification" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0140610193453/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000965.html). Encyclopedia of the American
Constitution. Archived from the original (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000965.html) on 10
June 2014. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
117. "Black voting rights, 15th Amendment still challenged after 150 years" (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/n
ews/nation/2020/02/03/black-voting-rights-15th-amendment-still-challenged-after-150-years/45871600
02/). USA Today. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
118. Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965) (https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100&p
age=transcript) U.S. National Archives.
119. The Constitution: The 24th Amendment (https://web.archive.org/web/20090214180002/http://www.tim
e.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,897070,00.html) Time.
120. French National Assembly. "1848 " Désormais le bulletin de vote doit remplacer le fusil " " (http://www.
assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/suffrage_universel/suffrage-1848.asp). Retrieved 26 September 2009.
121. "Movement toward greater democracy in Europe (http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h114_2002/democracy.ht
m) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20100804213940/http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h114_2002/de
mocracy.htm) 4 August 2010 at the Wayback Machine". Indiana University Northwest.
122. Hasan Kayalı (1995) Elections in the Ott Empire (1995).pdf "Elections and the Electoral Process in the
Ottoman Empire, 1876–1919" (http://psi203.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/Kayali,) International Journal
of Middle East Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp 265–286
123. Reconstructing Gender in Middle East: Tradition, Identity, and Power. Columbia University Press.
1995. p. 101.
124. Nohlen, Dieter (2001). Elections in Asia and the Pacific: South East Asia, East Asia, and the South
Pacific. Oxford University Press. p. 14.
125. Diamond, Larry (15 September 2015). "Timeline: Democracy in Recession" (https://www.nytimes.com/i
nteractive/2015/09/13/opinion/larry-diamond-democracy-in-recession-timeline.html). The New York
Times. Retrieved 25 January 2016.
126. Kurlantzick, Joshua (11 May 2017). "Mini-Trumps Are Running for Election All Over the World" (https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-11/mini-trumps-are-running-for-election-all-over-the-worl
d). Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 16 May 2017.
127. Mounk, Yascha (January 2017). "The Signs of Deconsolidation" (http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/a
uthoreditor/yascha-mounk). Journal of Democracy. Retrieved 16 May 2017.
128. "Age of Dictators: Totalitarianism in the inter-war period" (https://web.archive.org/web/2006090722074
6/http://www.snl.depaul.edu/contents/current/syllabi/HC_314.doc). Archived from the original (http://ww
w.snl.depaul.edu/contents/current/syllabi/HC_314.doc) on 7 September 2006. Retrieved 7 September
2006.
129. "Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?: The Independent Review: The Independent
Institute" (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=599). Independent.org. Retrieved
22 August 2010.
130. "World | South Asia | Country profiles | Country profile: India" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_a
sia/country_profiles/1154019.stm). BBC News. 7 June 2010. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
131. Julian Go (2007). "A Globalizing Constitutionalism?, Views from the Postcolony, 1945–2000" (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=kYmmnYKEvE0C&pg=PA94). In Arjomand, Saïd Amir (ed.).
Constitutionalism and political reconstruction. Brill. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-90-04-15174-1.
132. "How the Westminster Parliamentary System was exported around the World" (http://www.cam.ac.uk/r
esearch/features/how-the-westminster-parliamentary-system-was-exported-around-the-world).
University of Cambridge. 2 December 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2013.
133. "Age of democracies at the end of 2015" (https://web.archive.org/web/20200215230538/https://ourworl
dindata.org/grapher/age-of-democracies). Our World in Data. Archived from the original (https://ourworl
dindata.org/grapher/age-of-democracies) on 15 February 2020. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
134. "Tables and Charts" (http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090713213025/http://www.freedomhouse.org/templat
e.cfm?page=368&year=2007). Freedomhouse.org. 10 May 2004. Archived from the original (https://ww
w.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=368&year=2007) on 13 July 2009. Retrieved 22 August
2010.
135. "List of Electoral Democracies" (https://web.archive.org/web/20131016184935/http://www.fordemocrac
y.net/electoral.shtml). World Forum on Democracy. Archived from the original (http://www.fordemocrac
y.net/electoral.shtml) on 16 October 2013.
136. "General Assembly declares 15 September International Day of Democracy; Also elects 18 Members
to Economic and Social Council" (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10655.doc.htm).
Un.org. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
137. Bingham, Adrian (25 June 2019). " 'The last milestone' on the journey to full adult suffrage? 50 years of
debates about the voting age" (https://www.historyandpolicy.org/index.php/policy-papers/papers/the-la
st-milestone-on-the-journey-to-full-adult-suffrage). History & Policy. Retrieved 31 December 2022.
138. "Archives of Maryland, Volume 0138, Page 0051 - Constitutional Revision Study Documents of the
Constitutional Convention Commission, 1968" (https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc290
0/sc2908/000001/000138/html/am138--51.html). msa.maryland.gov. Retrieved 3 January 2023.
139. Sanders, Mark (2000). Your Right To Vote. United States: Raintree Steck- Vaugh company.
140. Wall, John (October 2014). "Democratising democracy: the road from women's to children's suffrage"
(https://johnwall.camden.rutgers.edu/files/2014/10/Democratising-Democracy-The-Road-from-Women
s-to-Childrens-Suffrage1.pdf) (PDF). The International Journal of Human Rights. 18:6 (6): 646–59.
doi:10.1080/13642987.2014.944807 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13642987.2014.944807).
S2CID 144895426 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144895426). Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20170420200500/http://johnwall.camden.rutgers.edu/files/2014/10/Democratising-Democra
cy-The-Road-from-Womens-to-Childrens-Suffrage1.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 20 April 2017 – via
Rutgers University.
141. "Freedom in the Word 2017" (https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017).
freedomhouse.org. 2016. Retrieved 16 May 2017.
142. "Freedom House: Democracy Scores for Most Countries Decline for 12th Consecutive Year" (https://w
ww.voanews.com/a/freedom-house-reports-decrease-in-democratic-principles/4209557.html), VOA
News, 16 January 2018. Retrieved 21 January 2018.
143. "As populism rises, fragile democracies move to weaken their courts" (https://www.csmonitor.com/Worl
d/2018/1113/As-populism-rises-fragile-democracies-move-to-weaken-their-courts). Christian Science
Monitor. 13 November 2018. ISSN 0882-7729 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0882-7729). Retrieved
14 November 2018.
144. Nazifa Alizada, Rowan Cole, Lisa Gastaldi, Sandra Grahn, Sebastian Hellmeier, Palina Kolvani, Jean
Lachapelle, Anna Lührmann, Seraphine F. Maerz, Shreeya Pillai, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2021.
Autocratization Turns Viral. Democracy Report 2021. University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute.
https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-
8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://w
ww.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pd
f) 14 September 2021 at the Wayback Machine
145. Greskovitz, Béla (2015). "The Hollowing and Backsliding of Democracy in East-Central Europe".
Global Policy. 6 (1): 28–37. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12225 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1758-5899.122
25).
146. Rhodes-Purdy, Matthew; Madrid, Raúl L. (27 November 2019). "The perils of personalism".
Democratization. 27 (2): 321–339. doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1696310 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F1
3510347.2019.1696310). ISSN 1351-0347 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1351-0347).
S2CID 212974380 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:212974380).
147. "Global overview of COVID-19: Impact on elections" (https://www.idea.int/news-media/multimedia-rep
orts/global-overview-covid-19-impact-elections). www.idea.int. Retrieved 28 January 2021.
148. Repucci, Sarah; Slipowitz, Amy. "Democracy under Lockdown" (https://freedomhouse.org/report/speci
al-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown). Freedom House. Retrieved 28 January 2021.
149. Democracy Facing Global Challenges: V-Dem Annual Democracy Report 2019 (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20190605230333/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/99/de/99dedd73-f8bc-484c-8b91-44
ba601b6e6b/v-dem_democracy_report_2019.pdf) (PDF) (Report). V-Dem Institute at the University of
Gothenburg. May 2019. Archived from the original (https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/99/de/99d
edd73-f8bc-484c-8b91-44ba601b6e6b/v-dem_democracy_report_2019.pdf) (PDF) on 5 June 2019.
Retrieved 26 April 2021.
150. Mettler, Suzanne (2020). Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy (http://worldcat.o
rg/oclc/1155487679). New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-250-24442-0. OCLC 1155487679 (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1155487679).
151. Farrell, Henry (14 August 2020). "History tells us there are four key threats to U.S. democracy" (https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/14/history-tells-us-there-are-four-key-threats-us-democrac
y/). The Washington Post.
152. Lieberman, By Suzanne Mettler and Robert C. (10 August 2020). "The Fragile Republic" (https://reade
r.foreignaffairs.com/2020/08/10/the-fragile-republic/content.html). Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 15 August
2020.
153. Haggard, Stephan; Kaufman, Robert (2021). Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary
World (https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/backsliding/CCD2F28FB63A56409FF8911351F2E9
37). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108957809 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2F97811089
57809). ISBN 9781108957809. S2CID 242013001 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2420130
01). Retrieved 21 January 2021.
154. Malka, Ariel; Lelkes, Yphtach; Bakker, Bert N.; Spivack, Eliyahu (2020). "Who Is Open to Authoritarian
Governance within Western Democracies?" (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on
-politics/article/who-is-open-to-authoritarian-governance-within-western-democracies/0ADCD5FFE5B
7E9267E8283C7561FB6BE). Perspectives on Politics. 20 (3): 808–827.
doi:10.1017/S1537592720002091 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS1537592720002091). ISSN 1537-
5927 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1537-5927). S2CID 225207244 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:225207244).
155. "Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, Chapter 10 (1160a.31-1161a.9)" (http://classics.mit.edu/Aris
totle/nicomachaen.8.viii.html). Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
156. "Aristotle" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aristotl.htm). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
157. Deudney, Daniel H. (9 November 2008). Deudney, D.: Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory
from the Polis to the Global Village. (eBook and Paperback) (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8304.htm
l). press.princeton.edu. ISBN 978-0-691-13830-5. Retrieved 14 March 2017.
158. Springer, Simon (2011). "Public Space as Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism, Radical
Democracy, Neoliberalism and Violence" (https://www.academia.edu/354048). Antipode. 43 (2): 525–
62. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00827.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8330.2010.00827.x).
159. Joseph Schumpeter, (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-
133008-6.
160. Anthony Downs, (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. HarperCollins College. ISBN 0-06-
041750-1.
161. Dahl, Robert, (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-
04938-2
162. Dworkin, Ronald (2006). Is Democracy Possible Here? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ISBN 978-0-691-13872-5, p. 134.
163. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2002). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University
Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12019-5
164. Joshua Cohen, "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy" in Essays on Reason and Politics:
Deliberative Democracy Ed. James Bohman and William Rehg (The MIT Press: Cambridge) 1997,
72–73.
165. Ethan J. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?", Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 54, 2006
166. Warren, Mark E.; Pearse, Hilary (2008). Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia
Citizens' Assembly (https://philpapers.org/rec/WARDDD-2). Cambridge University Press.
167. Suiter, Jane; Farrell, David M; O'Malley, Eoin (1 March 2016). "When do deliberative citizens change
their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens' Assembly" (https://doi.org/10.1177/019251211454406
8). International Political Science Review. 37 (2): 198–212. doi:10.1177/0192512114544068 (https://d
oi.org/10.1177%2F0192512114544068). ISSN 0192-5121 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0192-5121).
S2CID 155953192 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:155953192).
168. Smith, Graham (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (https://
www.cambridge.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4).
Theories of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-51477-4.
169. "Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave | en
| OECD" (https://www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions-33
9306da-en.htm). www.oecd.org. Retrieved 20 November 2020.
170. Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, Nazifa
Alizada, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Agnes Cornell, M. Steven Fish, Lisa Gastaldi, Haakon
Gjerløw, Adam Glynn, Allen Hicken, Garry Hindle, Nina Ilchenko, Joshua Krusell, Anna Lührmann,
Seraphine F. Maerz, Kyle L. Marquardt, Kelly McMann, Valeriya Mechkova, Juraj Medzihorsky, Pamela
Paxton, Daniel Pemstein, Josefine Pernes, Johannes von Römer, Brigitte Seim, Rachel Sigman,
Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, Aksel Sundström, Eitan Tzelgov, Yi-ting Wang, Tore Wig, Steven
Wilson and Daniel Ziblatt. 2021. "V-Dem [Country–Year/Country–Date] Dataset v11.1" Varieties of
Democracy (V-Dem) Project. https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds21.
171. Skaaning, Svend-Erik (2018). "Different Types of Data and the Validity of Democracy Measures" (http
s://doi.org/10.17645%2Fpag.v6i1.1183). Politics and Governance. 6 (1): 105.
doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1183 (https://doi.org/10.17645%2Fpag.v6i1.1183).
172. Glynn, Adam; Staton, Jeffrey; Altman, David; Skaaning, Svend-Erik; Coppedge, Michael; Teorell, Jan;
Kroenig, Matthew; Tzelgov, Eitan; McMann, Kelly. "Varieties of Democracy v.1 (2014)" (https://curate.n
d.edu/show/0r967367z05). curate.nd.edu. Retrieved 12 June 2021.
173. Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, David Altman,
Michael Bernhard, Agnes Cornell, M. Steven Fish, Lisa Gastaldi, Haakon Gjerløw, Adam Glynn, Allen
Hicken, Anna Lührmann, Seraphine F. Maerz, Kyle L.Marquardt, Kelly McMann, Valeriya Mechkova,
Pamela Paxton, Daniel Pemstein, Johannes vonRömer, Brigitte Seim, Rachel Sigman, Svend-Erik
Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, Aksel Sundtröm, EitanTzelgov, Luca Uberti, Yi-ting Wang, Tore Wig, and
Daniel Ziblatt. 2021. "V-Dem Codebook v11"Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.[1] (https://www.v
-dem.net/media/filer_public/be/11/be11d657-a240-4fb0-a47f-bc151296e779/codebook.pdf) Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20210608011903/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/be/11/be11d6
57-a240-4fb0-a47f-bc151296e779/codebook.pdf) 8 June 2021 at the Wayback Machine
174. "Democracy index 2012: Democracy at a standstill" (https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?c
ampaignid=DemocracyIndex12). Economist Intelligence Unit. 14 March 2013. Retrieved 24 March
2013.
175. Alexander Krauss, 2016. scientific limits of understanding the %28potential%29 relationship between
complex social phenomena -- the case of democracy and inequality.pdf The scientific limits of
understanding the (potential) relationship between complex social phenomena: the case of democracy
and inequality (http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kraussa/The). Vol. 23(1). Journal of Economic Methodology. (h
ttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1350178X.2015.1069372)
176. Fuchs, Dieter; Roller, Edeltraud (2018). "Conceptualizing and Measuring the Quality of Democracy:
The Citizens' Perspective" (https://doi.org/10.17645%2Fpag.v6i1.1188). Politics and Governance. 6
(1): 22. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1188 (https://doi.org/10.17645%2Fpag.v6i1.1188).
177. Mayne, Quinton; Geißel, Brigitte (2018). "Don't Good Democracies Need "Good" Citizens? Citizen
Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality" (https://doi.org/10.17645%2Fpag.v6i1.1216).
Politics and Governance. 6 (1): 33. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1216 (https://doi.org/10.17645%2Fpag.v6i1.
1216).
178. Dahl, Robert A., Ian Shapiro, José Antônio Cheibub, and Adam Przeworski. “Minimalist Conception of
Democracy: A Defense.” Essay. In The Democracy Sourcebook, 12–17. Cambridge, MA, MA: MIT
Press, 2003.
179. Schmitter, Philippe C. and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. "What Democracy is.. . and is Not." Journal of
Democracy 2 (3): 75-88
180. Coppedge, Michael, Angel Alvarez, and Claudia Maldonado. 2008. "Two Persistent Dimensions of
Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness." The Journal of Politics70 (3): 632-647.
181. Samuels, David. “Chapter 3: Democratic Political Regimes.” Essay. In Comparative Politics. New
York: Pearson Education, 2013.
182. Clark, William Roberts, Matt Golder, and Sona Nadenichek Golder. “Chapter 5: Economic
Determinates of Democracy.” Chapter. In Foundations of Comparative Politics, 351–92.
183. Högström, John. “Does the Choice of Democracy Measure Matter? Comparisons between the Two
Leading Democracy Indices, Freedom House and Polity IV.” Government and Opposition 48, no. 2
(2013): 201–21. doi:10.1017/gov.2012.10.
184. Piironen, Ossi. 2005. "Minimalist Democracy without Substance? an Evaluation of the Mainstream
Measures of Democracy." Politiikka 47 (3): 189-204.
185. G.F. Gaus, C. Kukathas, Handbook of Political Theory, SAGE, 2004, pp. 143–45, ISBN 0-7619-6787-
7, Google Books link (https://books.google.com/books?id=RGisaLxA6eMC)
186. The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 26, ISBN 0-691-12017-X, Google
Books link (https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX7mAbjGOYC)
187. A. Barak, The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 40, ISBN 0-691-12017-X,
Google Books link (https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX7mAbjGOYC)
188. T.R. Williamson, Problems in American Democracy, Kessinger Publishing, 2004, p. 36, ISBN 1-4191-
4316-6, Google Books link (https://books.google.com/books?id=NrUlR8nc9Q8C)
189. U.K. Preuss, "Perspectives of Democracy and the Rule of Law." Journal of Law and Society, 18:3
(1991). pp. 353–64
190. Budge, Ian (2001). "Direct democracy" (https://books.google.com/books?id=srzDCqnZkfUC&pg=PA22
4). In Clarke, Paul A.B.; Foweraker, Joe (eds.). Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Taylor & Francis.
ISBN 978-0-415-19396-2.
191. Beramendi, Virginia, and Jennifer Somalie. Angeyo. Direct Democracy: The International Idea
Handbook. Stockholm, Sweden: International IDEA, 2008. Print.
192. Vincent Golay and Mix et Remix, Swiss political institutions, Éditions loisirs et pédagogie, 2008.
ISBN 978-2-606-01295-3.
193. Niels Barmeyer, Developing Zapatista Autonomy, Chapter Three: Who is Running the Show? The
Workings of Zapatista Government.
194. Denham, Diana (2008). Teaching Rebellion: Stories from the Grassroots Mobilization in Oaxaca.
195. Zibechi, Raul (2013). Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces in Latin America.
196. "A Very Different Ideology in the Middle East" (http://rudaw.net/english/opinion/29012015). Rudaw.
197. Manin, Bernard (1997). Principles of Representative Government (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/c
am031/96019710.html). Cambridge University Press. pp. 8–11. S2CID 153766786 (https://api.semanti
cscholar.org/CorpusID:153766786).
198. "Radical Revolution – The Thermidorean Reaction" (https://web.archive.org/web/19990203212816/htt
p://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REV/RADICAL.HTM). Wsu.edu. 6 June 1999. Archived from the original (http://
www.wsu.edu/~dee/REV/RADICAL.HTM) on 3 February 1999. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
199. Köchler, Hans (1987). The Crisis of Representative Democracy. Frankfurt/M., Bern, New York.
ISBN 978-3-8204-8843-2.
200. Urbinati, Nadia (1 October 2008). "2". Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy.
ISBN 978-0-226-84279-0.
201. Fenichel Pitkin, Hanna (September 2004). "Representation and democracy: uneasy alliance".
Scandinavian Political Studies. 27 (3): 335–42. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2004.00109.x (https://doi.org/
10.1111%2Fj.1467-9477.2004.00109.x). S2CID 154048078 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
154048078).
202. Aristotle. "Ch. 9". Politics. Vol. Book 4.
203. Keen, Benjamin, A History of Latin America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980.
204. Kuykendall, Ralph, Hawaii: A History. New York: Prentice Hall, 1948.
205. Brown, Charles H., The Correspondents' War. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967.
206. Taussig, Capt. J.K., "Experiences during the Boxer Rebellion," in Quarterdeck and Fo'c'sle. Chicago:
Rand McNally & Company, 1963
207. O'Neil, Patrick H. Essentials of Comparative Politics. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton 2010. Print
208. Garret, Elizabeth (13 October 2005). "The Promise and Perils of Hybrid Democracy" (https://wayback.a
rchive-it.org/all/20171009224922/http://clhc.usc.edu/centres/cslp/assets/docs/cslp-wp-048.pdf) (PDF).
The Henry Lecture, University of Oklahoma Law School. Archived from the original (http://clhc.usc.edu/
centres/cslp/assets/docs/cslp-wp-048.pdf) (PDF) on 9 October 2017. Retrieved 7 August 2012.
209. Serdült, Uwe (2014), Qvortrup, Matt (ed.), "Referendums in Switzerland" (https://doi.org/10.1057/97811
37314703_4), Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy, London:
Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 65–121, doi:10.1057/9781137314703_4 (https://doi.org/10.1057%2F9781
137314703_4), ISBN 978-1-137-31470-3, retrieved 17 June 2022
210. "Article on direct democracy by Imraan Buccus" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100117121519/http://w
ww.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3985561). Themercury.co.za. Archived from the original (htt
p://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3985561) on 17 January 2010. Retrieved 22 August
2010.
211. "A Citizen's Guide To Vermont Town Meeting" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120805023214/http://ww
w.sec.state.vt.us/TownMeeting/citizens_guide.html). July 2008. Archived from the original (http://www.s
ec.state.vt.us/townmeeting/citizens_guide.html) on 5 August 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
212. Skaaning, Svend-Erik (2020). "Waves of autocratization and democratization: a critical note on
conceptualization and measurement" (https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/211506495/Waves_of_autocratization
_and_democratization_Accepted_manuscript_2020.pdf) (PDF). Democratization. 27 (8): 1533–1542.
doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1799194 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13510347.2020.1799194).
S2CID 225378571 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:225378571).
213. Lührmann, Anna; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2019). "A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about
it?" (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13510347.2019.1582029). Democratization. 26 (7): 1095–1113.
doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13510347.2019.1582029).
S2CID 150992660 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:150992660). "The decline of democratic
regime attributes – autocratization"
214. Mietzner, Marcus (2021). "Sources of resistance to democratic decline: Indonesian civil society and its
trials". Democratization. 28 (1): 161–178. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1796649 (https://doi.org/10.108
0%2F13510347.2020.1796649). S2CID 225475139 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:225475
139).
215. Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017) Populism: a Very Short Introduction. New York:
Oxford University Press. pp.86-96. ISBN 978-0-19-023487-4
216. Laebens, Melis G.; Lührmann, Anna (2021). "What halts democratic erosion? The changing role of
accountability". Democratization. 28 (5): 908–928. doi:10.1080/13510347.2021.1897109 (https://doi.or
g/10.1080%2F13510347.2021.1897109). S2CID 234870008 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:234870008).
217. Daly, Tom Gerald (2019). "Democratic Decay: Conceptualising an Emerging Research Field". Hague
Journal on the Rule of Law. 11: 9–36. doi:10.1007/s40803-019-00086-2 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs4
0803-019-00086-2). S2CID 159354232 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:159354232).
218. Huq, Aziz Z (2021). "How (not) to explain a democratic recession". International Journal of
Constitutional Law. 19 (2): 723–737. doi:10.1093/icon/moab058 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Ficon%2F
moab058).
219. Chull Shin, Doh (2021). "Democratic deconsolidation in East Asia: exploring system realignments in
Japan, Korea, and Taiwan". Democratization. 28 (1): 142–160. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1826438
(https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13510347.2020.1826438). S2CID 228959708 (https://api.semanticscholar.
org/CorpusID:228959708).
220. Walder, D.; Lust, E. (2018). "Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding" (http
s://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-polisci-050517-114628). Annual Review of Political Science. 21 (1):
93–113. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-polisci-050
517-114628). "Backsliding entails a deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance,
within any regime. In democratic regimes, it is a decline in the quality of democracy; in autocracies, it is
a decline in democratic qualities of governance."
221. The Global State of Democracy 2021 (https://www.idea.int/gsod/sites/default/files/2021-11/the-global-s
tate-of-democracy-2021_0.pdf), International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
222. Arugay, Aries A. (2021). "Democratic Transitions". The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security
Studies. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–7. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_190-1 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319-74336-3_190-1). ISBN 978-3-319-74336-3. S2CID 240235199 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:240235199).
223. Abjorensen, N. (2019). Historical Dictionary of Democracy (https://books.google.com/books?id=cNSS
DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA116). Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements Series.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-5381-2074-3. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
224. "64. The British Empire in 1914. Wells, H.G. 1922. A Short History of the World" (https://www.bartleby.c
om/86/64.html). www.bartleby.com. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
225. "Republic – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary" (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/re
public). M-W.com. 25 April 2007. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
226. "The Federalist Papers : No. 10" (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp). Avalon Project.
29 December 1998. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
227. Richard J. Ellis and Michael Nelson, Debating the presidency (2009) p. 211
228. Novanglus, no. 7. 6 March 1775
229. Brockell, Gillian (19 December 2019). " 'A republic, if you can keep it': Did Ben Franklin really say
Impeachment Day's favorite quote?" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/12/18/republic-if-y
ou-can-keep-it-did-ben-franklin-really-say-impeachment-days-favorite-quote/). The Washington Post.
Retrieved 20 January 2021.
230. "The Founders' Constitution: Volume 1, Chapter 18, Introduction, "Epilogue: Securing the Republic" "
(http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18I.html). Press-pubs.uchicago.edu.
Retrieved 22 August 2010.
231. "Economics Cannot be Separated from Politics" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/08/0
8.htm) speech by Che Guevara to the ministerial meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social
Council (CIES), in Punta del Este, Uruguay on August 8, 1961
232. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. General Idea of the Revolution See also commentary by Graham, Robert.
The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/pro
udhon/grahamproudhon.html)
233. Bookchin, Murray. Communalism: The Democratic Dimensions of Social Anarchism. Anarchism,
Marxism and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993–1998, AK Press 1999, p. 155
234. Bookchin, Murray. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm (http://dwardma
c.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/soclife.html)
235. Graeber, David and Grubacic, Andrej. Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first
Century
236. Thoreau, H.D. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/71/71.txt)
237. Dowlen, Oliver (2008). The Political Potential of Sortition: A study of the random selection of citizens
for public office. Imprint Academic.
238. Arend, Lijphart (January 1969). "Consociational Democracy" (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journal
s/world-politics/article/abs/consociational-democracy/BB47BF2A5A4EBAE341FD3FA4E262410F).
World Politics. 21 (2): 207–225. doi:10.2307/2009820 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2009820).
JSTOR 2009820 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2009820). S2CID 251572712 (https://api.semanticschola
r.org/CorpusID:251572712).
239. "Article on Cosmopolitan democracy by Daniele Archibugi" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220
629/http://www.danielearchibugi.org/downloads/papers/CD_and_critics_A_review.pdf) (PDF).
Archived from the original (http://www.danielearchibugi.org/downloads/papers/CD_and_critics_A_revi
ew.pdf) (PDF) on 25 July 2011. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
240. "letter by Einstein – "To the General Assembly of the United Nations" " (https://web.archive.org/web/20
130510174259/http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html). Archived from
the original (http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html) on 10 May 2013.
Retrieved 2 July 2013., first published in United Nations World New York, October 1947, pp. 13–14
241. Daniele Archibugi & David Held, eds., Cosmopolitan Democracy. An Agenda for a New World Order,
Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995; David Held, Democracy and the Global Order, Polity Press,
Cambridge, 1995, Daniele Archibugi, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan
Democracy (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8737.html), Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008
242. "Creative Democracy – The Task Before Us" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150212175652/http://pag
es.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/dewey/dewey_creative_democracy.pdf) (PDF). Archived
from the original (http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/dewey/dewey_creative_demo
cracy.pdf) (PDF) on 12 February 2015. Retrieved 12 February 2015.
243. Ten Years After the Soviet Breakup: From Democratization to "Guided Democracy" (https://muse.jhu.e
du/article/17149/pdf) Journal of Democracy. By Archie Brown. October 2001. Downloaded 28 April
2017.
244. Putin's Rule: Its Main Features and the Current Diarchy (http://www.russialist.org/archives/2009-35-32.
php) Johnson's Russia List. By Peter Reddaway. 18 February 2009. Downloaded 28 April 2017.
245. Compare: Tibi, Bassam (2013). The Sharia State: Arab Spring and Democratization (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=uXAdAAAAQBAJ). p. 161. ISBN 978-1-135-92468-3.
246. Friend, Celeste (n.d.). "Social Contract Theory" (https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/). Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved 26 April 2022.
247. Daron Acemoglu; Suresh Naidu; Pascual Restrepo; James A. Robinson (February 2019). "Democracy
Does Cause Growth". Journal of Political Economy. 127 (1): 47–100. doi:10.1086/700936 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1086%2F700936). hdl:1721.1/124287 (https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1%2F124287).
S2CID 222452675 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:222452675).
248. "Democracy dividend" (https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/24/135720/democracy-dividend/).
249. Raghunathan, Viswanathan (2010). The Corruption Conundrum and Other Paradoxes and Dilemmas.
Penguin Books. ISBN 9780670083565.
250. "Is Democracy a Pre-Condition in Economic Growth? A Perspective from the Rise of Modern China" (h
ttps://web.archive.org/web/20170316230321/https://unchronicle.un.org/article/democracy-pre-conditio
n-economic-growth-perspective-rise-modern-china). UN Chronicle. Archived from the original (https://u
nchronicle.un.org/article/democracy-pre-condition-economic-growth-perspective-rise-modern-china)
on 16 March 2017. Retrieved 24 January 2017.
251. Conversation of Socrates, Plato; H, Translated by Spens. The Republic of Plato – Book ten – A
conversation between Socrates and Admimantus.
252. Plato, the Republic of Plato (London: J.M Dent & Sons LTD.; New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc.), 558-C.
253. The contrast between Plato's theory of philosopher-kings, arresting change, and Aristotle's embrace of
change is the historical tension espoused by Karl Raimund Popper in his WWII treatise, The Open
Society and its Enemies (1943).
254. Fung, Katherine (27 May 2022). "China president warned Biden democracy is dying: "You don't have
the time" " (https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-naval-academy-speech-china-democracy-warning-1
710966). Newsweek. Retrieved 1 June 2022.
255. Femia, Joseph V. (2001). Against the masses : varieties of anti-democratic thought since the French
Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-828063-7. OCLC 46641885 (https://www.
worldcat.org/oclc/46641885).
256. Dilliard, Irving (1941). Mr. Justice Brandeis, great American;press opinion and public appraisal. Saint
Louis. hdl:2027/mdp.39015009170443 (https://hdl.handle.net/2027%2Fmdp.39015009170443).
257. "Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens", M. Gilens and B. I.
Page (2014), Perspectives on politics 12, 564–581, [2] (https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-c
ambridge-core/content/view/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/S1537592714001595a.pdf/tes
ting_theories_of_american_politics_elites_interest_groups_and_average_citizens.pdf)
258. David Tucker, Enlightened republicanism: a study of Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia (2008)
p. 109
259. "Head to head: African democracy" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7671283.stm). BBC News.
16 October 2008. Retrieved 1 April 2010.
260. The Review of Policy Research, Volume 22, Issues 1–3, Policy Studies Organization, Potomac
Institute for Policy Studies. Blackwell Publishing, 2005. p. 28
261. For example: Lipset, Seymour Martin. (1959). "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic
Development and Political Legitimacy". American Political Science Review. 53 (1): 69–105.
doi:10.2307/1951731 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1951731). JSTOR 1951731 (https://www.jstor.org/sta
ble/1951731). S2CID 53686238 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53686238).
262. Inglehart, Ronald. Welzel, Christian Modernisation, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human
Development Sequence, 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
263. Inglehart, Ronald F. (2018). Cultural Evolution: People's Motivations Are Changing, and Reshaping
the World. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108613880 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2F978
1108613880). ISBN 978-1-108-61388-0.
264. Gibler, Douglas M.; Owsiak, Andrew (2017). "Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders,
1919–2001". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 62 (9): 1847–75. doi:10.1177/0022002717708599 (https://
doi.org/10.1177%2F0022002717708599). S2CID 158036471 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:158036471).
265. Foreword, written by historian Harry J Hogan (http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/index.xml)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20130901040610/http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/ind
ex.xml) 1 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine in 1982, to Quigley's Weapons Systems and
Political Stability
266. see also Chester G Starr, Review of Weapons Systems and Political Stability, American Historical
Review, Feb 1984, p. 98, available at carrollquigley.net (http://www.carrollquigley.net/book-reviews/Re
view-of-Weapons-Systems-Political-Stability-Starr.htm)
267. Carroll Quigley (1983). Weapons systems and political stability: a history (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=L6e2AAAAIAAJ). University Press of America. pp. 38–39. ISBN 978-0-8191-2947-5. Retrieved
20 May 2013.
268. Carroll Quigley (1983). Weapons systems and political stability: a history (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=L6e2AAAAIAAJ). University Press of America. p. 307. ISBN 978-0-8191-2947-5. Retrieved
20 May 2013.
269. Glaeser, E.; Ponzetto, G.; Shleifer, A. (2007). "Why does democracy need education?" (http://nrs.harvar
d.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27867132). Journal of Economic Growth. 12 (2): 77–99.
doi:10.1007/s10887-007-9015-1 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10887-007-9015-1). Retrieved 3 July
2017.
270. Deary, I.J.; Batty, G.D.; Gale, C.R. (2008). "Bright children become enlightened adults" (https://www.pur
e.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/8896064/bright_children_become_enlightened_adults.pdf) (PDF). Psychological
Science. 19 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02036.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.2
008.02036.x). hdl:20.500.11820/a86dbef4-60eb-44fa-add3-513841cdf81b (https://hdl.handle.net/20.50
0.11820%2Fa86dbef4-60eb-44fa-add3-513841cdf81b). PMID 18181782 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/18181782). S2CID 21297949 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:21297949).
271. Compare: Rindermann, H (2008). "Relevance of education and intelligence for the political
development of nations: Democracy, rule of law and political liberty". Intelligence. 36 (4): 306–22.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.09.003 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intell.2007.09.003). "Political theory has
described a positive linkage between education, cognitive ability and democracy. This assumption is
confirmed by positive correlations between education, cognitive ability, and positively valued political
conditions (N = 183–130). [...] It is shown that in the second half of the 20th century, education and
intelligence had a strong positive impact on democracy, rule of law and political liberty independent
from wealth (GDP) and chosen country sample. One possible mediator of these relationships is the
attainment of higher stages of moral judgment fostered by cognitive ability, which is necessary for the
function of democratic rules in society. The other mediators for citizens as well as for leaders could be
the increased competence and willingness to process and seek information necessary for political
decisions due to greater cognitive ability. There are also weaker and less stable reverse effects of the
rule of law and political freedom on cognitive ability."
272. Albertus, Michael; Menaldo, Victor (2012). "Coercive Capacity and the Prospects for Democratisation".
Comparative Politics. 44 (2): 151–69. doi:10.5129/001041512798838003 (https://doi.org/10.5129%2F
001041512798838003). S2CID 153949862 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:153949862).
273. Paglayan, Agustina S. (February 2021). "The Non-Democratic Roots of Mass Education: Evidence
from 200 Years" (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0003055420000647). American Political Science
Review. 115 (1): 179–198. doi:10.1017/S0003055420000647 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS00030554
20000647). ISSN 0003-0554 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0003-0554).
274. Squicciarini, Mara and Voigtländer, Nico, Knowledge Elites and Modernization: Evidence from
Revolutionary France (October 2016). NBER Working Paper No. w22779, Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2861711
275. Acemoglu, Daron; Robinson, James A. (2006). Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85526-6.
276. "Rainfall and Democracy" (http://www.plawlotic.com/?p=102).
277. Alsan, Marcella (2015). "The Effect of the TseTse Fly on African Development" (https://www.dartmouth.
edu/~neudc2012/docs/paper_285.pdf) (PDF). American Economic Review. 105 (1): 382–410.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1010.2955 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.1010.2955).
doi:10.1257/aer.20130604 (https://doi.org/10.1257%2Faer.20130604). Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20150924201234/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~neudc2012/docs/paper_285.pdf) (PDF) from the
original on 24 September 2015.
278. Acemoglu, Daron; Johnson, Simon; Robinson, James (2005). "Institutions as a fundamental cause of
long-run growth". Handbook of Economic Growth. Handbook of Economic Growth. Vol. 1. pp. 385–
472, Sections 1 to 4. doi:10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS1574-0684%2
805%2901006-3). ISBN 978-0-444-52041-8.
279. Mellinger, Andrew D., Jeffrey Sachs, and John L. Gallup. (1999). "Climate, Water Navigability, and
Economic Development" (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/pubs/024.p
df). Working Paper.
280. Acemoglu, Daron; Johnson, Simon; Robinson, James (2005). "Institutions as a fundamental cause of
long-run growth". Handbook of Economic Growth. Handbook of Economic Growth. Vol. 1. pp. 385–
472, Sections 5 to 10. doi:10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS1574-0684%
2805%2901006-3). ISBN 978-0-444-52041-8.
281. Robert Michels (1999) [1962 by Crowell-Collier]. Political Parties (https://books.google.com/books?id=
ijae_UIez38C). Transaction Publishers. p. 243. ISBN 978-1-4128-3116-1. Retrieved 5 June 2013.
282. Alan Siaroff (2009). Comparing Political Regimes: A Thematic Introduction to Comparative Politics.
University of Toronto Press. p. 285. ISBN 9781442600126.
283. MacChesney, Robert W (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious
times. University of Illinois Press.
284. Barnett, Steven (2002). "Will a crisis in journalism provoke a crisis in democracy?". The Political
Quarterly. 73 (4): 400–408. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.00494 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-923X.004
94).
285. Gurevitch, Michael; Blumler, Jay G. (1990). "Political Communication Systems and Democratic
Values". In Lichtenberg, Judith (ed.). Democracy and the mass media: A collection of essays.
Cambridge University Press. pp. 269–289.
286. Bucy, Erik P.; D'Angelo, Paul (1999). "The Crisis of Political Communication: Normative Critiques of
News and Democratic Processes". Communication Yearbook. 22: 301–339.
287. Blumler, Jay G. (2014). "Mediatization and Democracy". In Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.).
Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 31–
41.
288. Donges, Patrick; Jarren, Otfried (2014). "Mediatization of Organizations: Changing Parties and Interest
Groups?". In Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.). Mediatization of politics: Understanding the
transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 31–41.
289. Esser, Frank (2013). "Mediatization as a Challenge: Media Logic versus Political Logic". In Kriesi,
Hanspeter; Esser, Frank; Bühlmann, Marc (eds.). Democracy in the Age of Globalization and
Mediatization. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 155–176.
290. Cappella, Joseph N.; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public
good. Oxford University Press.
291. Vreese, Claes H. de (2014). "Mediatization of News: The Role of Journalistic Framing". In Esser,
Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.). Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of
Western democracies. Springer. pp. 137–155.
292. Esser, Frank; Matthes, Jörg (2013). "Mediatization Effects on Political News, Political Actors, Political
Decisions, and Political Audiences". In Kriesi, Hanspeter; Esser, Frank; Bühlmann, Marc (eds.).
Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 177–201.
293. Baum, Matthew A. (2003). Soft news goes to war. Public opinion and american foreign policy in the
new media era. Princeton University Press.
294. Altheide, David L. (2002). Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis. Aldine de Gruyter.
ISBN 978-1-138-52143-8.
295. Altheide, David L. (2014). Media edge: Media logic and social reality. Peter Lang.
296. Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis (2016). "The Business of News". In Witschge, Tamara; Anderson, Christopher
William; Domingo, David; Hermida, Alfred (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism. Sage.
pp. 51–67.
297. Cinelli, Matteo; Morales, Gianmarco De Francisci; Galeazzi, Alessandro; Quattrociocchi, Walter;
Starnini, Michele (2021). "The echo chamber effect on social media" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm
c/articles/PMC7936330). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 18 (9): e2023301118.
Bibcode:2021PNAS..11823301C (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PNAS..11823301C).
doi:10.1073/pnas.2023301118 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.2023301118). PMC 7936330 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7936330). PMID 33622786 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3
3622786).
298. McCoy, Jennifer; Somer, Murat (2019). "Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms
Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies" (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00027162
18818782). The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 681 (1): 234–271.
doi:10.1177/0002716218818782 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002716218818782). S2CID 150169330
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:150169330).
299. Cushion, Stephen (2012). The Democratic Value of News: Why Public Service Media Matter.
Macmillan.
300. Cushion, Stephen; Franklin, Bob (2015). "Public Service Broadcasting: Markets and Vulnerable
Values in Broadcast and Print Journalism". In Coleman, Stephen; Moss, Giles; Parry, Katy; Halperin,
John; Ryan, Michael (eds.). Can the Media Serve Democracy?: Essays in Honour of Jay G. Blumler.
Springer. pp. 65–75.
301. Buckley, Steve; Duer, Kreszentia; Mendel, Toby; Siochrú, Seán Ó (2008). Broadcasting, voice, and
accountability: A public interest approach to policy, law, and regulation. World Bank and University of
Michigan Press.
302. Gunther, Richard; Mugham, Anthony (2000). "The Political Impact of the Media: A Reassessment". In
Gunther, Richard; Mugham, Anthony (eds.). Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective.
Cambridge University Press. pp. 402–448.
303. Pickard, Victor (2020). "The Public Media Option: Confronting Policy Failure in an Age of
Misinformation". In Bennett, W. Lance; Livingston, Steven (eds.). The Disinformation Age: Politics,
Technology, and Disruptive Communication in the United States. Cambridge University Press.
pp. 238–258.
304. Udris, Linards; Lucht, Jens (2014). "Mediatization at the Structural Level: Independence from Politics,
Dependence on the Market". In Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.). Mediatization of politics:
Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 114–136.
305. Thoday, Jon (2018). "Public Service Television and the Crisis of Content". In Freedman, Des; Goblot,
Vana (eds.). A Future for Public Service Television. MIT Press. pp. 29–39.
306. Schulz, Winfried (2014). "Mediatization and New Media". In Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper (eds.).
Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer.
pp. 114–136.
307. Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina; Petrova, Maria; Enikolopov, Ruben (2020). "Political effects of the internet
and social media" (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-economics-081919-050239). Annual Review
of Economics. 12: 415–438. doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239 (https://doi.org/10.114
6%2Fannurev-economics-081919-050239). S2CID 219769484 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu
sID:219769484).
308. Voltmer, Katrin; Sorensen, Lone (2019). "Media, Power, Citizenship: The Mediatization of Democratic
Change". In Voltmer, Katrin; et al. (eds.). Media, Communication and the Struggle for Democratic
Change. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 35–58.
309. Vosoughi, Soroush; Roy, Deb; Aral, Sinan (2018). "The spread of true and false news online" (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20190429073158/http://vermontcomplexsystems.org/share/papershredder/vosoug
hi2018a.pdf) (PDF). Science. 359 (6380): 1146–1151. Bibcode:2018Sci...359.1146V (https://ui.adsab
s.harvard.edu/abs/2018Sci...359.1146V). doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fsci
ence.aap9559). PMID 29590045 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29590045). S2CID 4549072 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4549072). Archived from the original (http://vermontcomplexsyste
ms.org/share/papershredder/vosoughi2018a.pdf) (PDF) on 29 April 2019. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
310. Prooijen, Jan-Willem van; Ligthart, Joline; Rosema, Sabine (2021). "The entertainment value of
conspiracy theories" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290699). British Journal of
Psychology. 113 (1): 25–48. doi:10.1111/bjop.12522 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fbjop.12522).
PMC 9290699 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290699). PMID 34260744 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34260744).
311. Egorov, Georgy; Sonin, Konstantin (2020). The political economics of non-democracy (https://ssrn.co
m/abstract=3714441). National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. w27949.

Works cited
Clarke, P.; Foweraker, J. (2001). Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=srzDCqnZkfUC). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-415-19396-6.
Graeber, David (2013). The Democracy Project : a history, a crisis, a movement (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/769425385). New York. ISBN 978-0-8129-9356-1. OCLC 769425385 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/oclc/769425385).
Livy; De Sélincourt, A.; Ogilvie, R. M.; Oakley, S. P. (2002). The early history of Rome: books I-V of The
history of Rome from its foundations (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHh7heON3sQC). Penguin
Classics. ISBN 0-14-044809-8.
Mann, Barbara A.; Fields, Jerry L. (1997). "A Sign in the Sky: Dating the League of the
Haudenosaunee". American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 21 (2): 105–163.
doi:10.17953/aicr.21.2.k36m1485r3062510 (https://doi.org/10.17953%2Faicr.21.2.k36m1485r306251
0).
Ober, J.; Hedrick, C.W. (1996). Dēmokratia: a conversation on democracies, ancient and modern.
Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01108-0.
Raaflaub, Kurt A.; Ober, Josiah; Wallace, Robert W (2007). Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece.
University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24562-4.

Further reading
Abbott, Lewis. (2006). British Democracy: Its Restoration and Extension. ISR/Google Books. (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=xlZ_H7tE8cIC)
Appleby, Joyce. (1992). Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Harvard
University Press.
Archibugi, Daniele, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy,
Princeton University Press] ISBN 978-0-691-13490-1
Becker, Peter, Heideking, Juergen, & Henretta, James A. (2002). Republicanism and Liberalism in
America and the German States, 1750–1850. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80066-2
Benhabib, Seyla. (1996). Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.
Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-04478-1
Biagini, Eugenio (general editor). 2021. A Cultural History of Democracy, 6 Volumes; Volume 1: A
Cultural History of Democracy in Antiquity; Volume 2: A Cultural History of Democracy in the Medieval
Age; Volume 3: A Cultural History of Democracy in the Renaissance; Volume 4: A Cultural History of
Democracy in the Age of Enlightenment; Volume 5: A Cultural History of Democracy in the Age of
Empire; Volume 6: A Cultural History of Democracy in the Modern Age. New York : Bloomsbury
Academic.
Birch, Anthony H. (1993). The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. London: Routledge.
ISBN 978-0-415-41463-0
Bobbio, Norberto. 1987 [1984]. The Future of Democracy: A Defense of the Rules of The Game.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Castiglione, Dario. (2005). ""republicanism historiography" Republicanism and its Legacy (http://www.
huss.ex.ac.uk/politics/research/readingroom/CastiglioneRepublicanism.pdf#search=)." European
Journal of Political Theory. pp. 453–65.
Copp, David, Jean Hampton, & John E. Roemer. (1993). The Idea of Democracy. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43254-2
Caputo, Nicholas. (2005). America's Bible of Democracy: Returning to the Constitution. SterlingHouse
Publisher, Inc. ISBN 978-1-58501-092-9
Dahl, Robert A. (1991). Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-04938-1
Dahl, Robert A. (2000). On Democracy. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-08455-9
Dahl, Robert A. Ian Shapiro & Jose Antonio Cheibub. (2003). The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press.
ISBN 978-0-262-54147-3
Dahl, Robert A. (1963). A Preface to Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-
226-13426-0
Davenport, Christian. (2007). State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86490-9
Diamond, Larry & Marc Plattner. (1996). The Global Resurgence of Democracy. Johns Hopkins
University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-5304-3
Diamond, Larry & Richard Gunther. (2001). Political Parties and Democracy. JHU Press. ISBN 978-0-
8018-6863-4
Diamond, Larry & Leonardo Morlino. (2005). Assessing the Quality of Democracy. JHU Press.
ISBN 978-0-8018-8287-6
Diamond, Larry, Marc F. Plattner & Philip J. Costopoulos. (2005). World Religions and Democracy.
JHU Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8080-3
Diamond, Larry, Marc F. Plattner & Daniel Brumberg. (2003). Islam and Democracy in the Middle East.
JHU Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-7847-3
Doorenspleet, Renske. 2019. Rethinking the Value of Democracy. A Comparative Perspective. Cham,
Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Elster, Jon. (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-59696-1
Emerson, Peter (2007) "Designing an All-Inclusive Democracy." Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-33163-6
Emerson, Peter (2012) "Defining Democracy." Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-20903-1
Everdell, William R. (2003) The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-22482-1. online (https://archive.org/details/endofkingshistor0
0ever)
Fisher, Max. "U.S. Allies Drive Much of World’s Democratic Decline, Data Shows: Washington-aligned
countries backslid at nearly double the rate of non-allies, data shows, complicating long-held
assumptions about American influence" New York Times Nov 16, 2021 (https://www.nytimes.com/202
1/11/16/world/americas/democracy-decline-worldwide.html)
Fuller, Roslyn (2015). Beasts and Gods: How Democracy Changed Its Meaning and Lost its Purpose.
London: Zed Books. p. 371. ISBN 978-1-78360-542-2.
Gabardi, Wayne. (2001). Contemporary Models of Democracy. Polity.
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Princeton University
Press. ISBN 978-0-674-19766-4
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. (2002). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University
Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12019-5
Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and
Democracy. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Halperin, M.H., Siegle, J.T. & Weinstein, M.M. (2005). The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies
Promote Prosperity and Peace. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-95052-7
Henderson, G. C. (1920). Democracy: theoretical and practical  (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democr
acy:_theoretical_and_practical). Adelaide: G. Hassell & Son.
Hansen, Mogens Herman. (1991). The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford:
Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-18017-3
Held, David. (2006). Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5472-9
Inglehart, Ronald. (1997). Modernisation and Postmodernisation. Cultural, Economic, and Political
Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01180-6
Isakhan, Ben and Stockwell, Stephen (co-editors). (2011) The Secret History of Democracy. Palgrave
MacMillan. ISBN 978-0-230-24421-4
Kelsen, Hans. 2013 [1929]. The Essence and Value of Democracy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield
Khan, L. Ali. (2003). A Theory of Universal Democracy: Beyond the End of History. Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers. ISBN 978-90-411-2003-8
Köchler, Hans. (1987). The Crisis of Representative Democracy. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-8204-8843-2
Lijphart, Arend. 2012. Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six
Countries. 2nd. Ed. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.
Lipset, Seymour Martin (1959). "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and
Political Legitimacy". American Political Science Review. 53 (1): 69–105. doi:10.2307/1951731 (http
s://doi.org/10.2307%2F1951731). JSTOR 1951731 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1951731).
S2CID 53686238 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53686238).
Macpherson, C.B. (1977). The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-289106-8
Morgan, Edmund. (1989). Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and
America. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-30623-1
Mosley, Ivo (2003). Democracy, Fascism, and the New World Order. Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-0-
907845-64-5.
Mosley, Ivo (2013). In The Name Of The People. Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-1-84540-262-4.
Munck, Gerardo L. 2016. "What is Democracy? A Reconceptualization of the Quality of Democracy."
Democratization 23(1): 1-26.
O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2010. Democracy, Agency, and the State: Theory with Comparative Intent.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plattner, Marc F. & Aleksander Smolar. (2000). Globalisation, Power, and Democracy. JHU Press.
ISBN 978-0-8018-6568-8
Plattner, Marc F. & João Carlos Espada. (2000). The Democratic Invention. Johns Hopkins University
Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-6419-3
Przeworski, Adam. 2010. Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. New York: Cambridge
University Press
Przeworski, Adam. 2018. Why Bother With Elections? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Putnam, Robert. (2001). Making Democracy Work. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-5-551-
09103-5
Sen, Amartya K. (1999). "Democracy as a Universal Value". Journal of Democracy. 10 (3): 3–17.
doi:10.1353/jod.1999.0055 (https://doi.org/10.1353%2Fjod.1999.0055). S2CID 54556373 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54556373).
Sartori, Giovanni. 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited Part 1: The Contemporary Debate.
Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.
Sartori, Giovanni. 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited Part 2: The Classical Issues. Chatham,
N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper.
Tannsjo, Torbjorn. (2008). Global Democracy: The Case for a World Government. Edinburgh
University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-3499-6. Argues that not only is world government necessary if we
want to deal successfully with global problems it is also, pace Kant and Rawls, desirable in its own
right.
Thompson, Dennis (1970). The Democratic Citizen: Social Science and Democratic Theory in the
20th Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-13173-5
 Tooze, Adam, "Democracy and Its Discontents", The New York Review of Books, vol. LXVI, no. 10 (6
June 2019), pp. 52–53, 56–57. "Democracy has no clear answer for the mindless operation of
bureaucratic and technological power. We may indeed be witnessing its extension in the form of
artificial intelligence and robotics. Likewise, after decades of dire warning, the environmental problem
remains fundamentally unaddressed.... Bureaucratic overreach and environmental catastrophe are
precisely the kinds of slow-moving existential challenges that democracies deal with very badly....
Finally, there is the threat du jour: corporations and the technologies they promote." (pp. 56–57.)
Volk, Kyle G. (2014). Moral Minorities and the Making of American Democracy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Weingast, Barry. (1997). "The Political Foundations of the Rule of Law and Democracy". American
Political Science Review. 91 (2): 245–63. doi:10.2307/2952354 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2952354).
JSTOR 2952354 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2952354). S2CID 144556293 (https://api.semanticschola
r.org/CorpusID:144556293).
Whitehead, Laurence. (2002). Emerging Market Democracies: East Asia and Latin America. JHU
Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-7219-8
Willard, Charles Arthur. (1996). Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern
Democracy. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-89845-2
Wood, E. M. (1995). Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing historical materialism. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-47682-9
Wood, Gordon S. (1991). The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-
679-73688-2 examines democratic dimensions of republicanism

External links
Democracy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy) at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy (https://web.archive.org/web/20090123021509/https://ete
xt.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-78)
Index 2008.pdf The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy (https://web.archive.org/web/200
81214053945/http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democr
acy)
Alexis de of data sources on political regimes (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/home.html)
on Our World in Data, by Max Roser.
"Democracy" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00547jm), BBC Radio 4 discussion on the origins of
Democracy (In Our Time, 18 October 2001)
Democracy Countries 2022 (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries)
interactive map of countries at World Population Review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy&oldid=1146424434"