Talk:Democracy/Archive 14

Merger proposal

I propose that Varieties of democracy be merged with Democracy. I've tagged both articles accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ANCIENT ROME

According to this article Rome was not a democracy because it did not let women and slaves vote, but Greece was a democracy but they also did not let women and slaves vote. That is hypricritical. This is what the Greeks and Romans viewed as democratic - men voting. They believed they were democratic. We are applying modern definitions to democracy when we talk about them being democratic or not. But they did not live in the modern world, so why should a modern definition be applied. Also Rome was a Republic. A Republic is probally the most democratic form of a democracy. Hint hint nudge nudge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.15.238 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Further Reading

Spread, Patrick (1984). A Theory of Support and Money Bargaining, London. Macmillan.
Spread, Patrick (2004). Getting It Right: Economics and the Security of Support, Sussex, Book Guild.
Spread, Patrick (2008). Support-Bargaining: The Mechanics of Democracy Revealed, Sussex, Book Guild.

Papersign (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Organization of article

Ancient Athens is where the word "democracy" originated, the ultimate model of what it means to be a democracy. But this article throws Athens together with Iroquois, Sumerians, Bushmen and whatnot. Primitive societies all had consensus building mechanisms, but this idea is not quite government, more of a proto-government, and thus several steps away from democracy. Kauffner (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Democracy

{{editsemiprotected}}

I propose the addition of the following paragraphs under the Section 'Criticisms of Democracy'.

Not done: Thanks for wanting to improve this article. This is well written but it relies on a single author recent published through what is basically a vanity press. A quick internet search doesn't find any other mention of support-bargaining used this way. Can you find other references? Celestra (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Response:

The following response is made to comments appearing in the discussion page for 'Economics' under 'Criticisms of Economics'. It concerns the proposed 'Support-Bargaining' insertion below, as well as the proposed 'Money-Bargaining' insertion under 'Economics'. Please see also the discussion on the proposed deletion of the entries on 'Money-Bargaining' and 'Support-Bargaining' on the deletion page for 'Money-Bargaining'.

Thanks for all the comments.

It appears I am now permitted to edit the page directly, but the comments indicate that it would not be appropriate to make the proposed insertion. There is, in any case, a proposal to delete the main entries on 'Money-Bargaining' and 'Support-Bargaining', to which I have responded on the Money-Bargaining deletion page. I am copying this also to the Money-Bargaining deletion page, since it is relevant to the proposal for deletion.

We have to separate the questions of what is right and what is respectable. If Wikipedia is only concerned with material that is derived from respectable sources, then the queries about the sources (meaning the publisher, Book Guild), may be relevant. The question of what is right would be of no significance.

While the Book Guild is not a conventional publisher, it is not of the undiscriminating kind. It has some distinguished authors. It has published Lord (Denis) Healey, the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer. It also publishes Peter Evans, who was Home Affairs correspondent on the Times for seventeen years. [All the references have ISBN Numbers: Spread (1984) 0-333-36569-0; Spread (2004) 1-85776-860-4; Spread (2008) 978-1-84624-251-9.]

As regards what is right, the 'open edit' approach of Wikipedia suggests a commitment to a wider range of opinion than can be accommodated in formal 'establishment' encyclopaedias. This seems to suggest also acceptance of a broader range of sources. There is an implication that the establishment and its 'respectable' sources could be wrong, or at least incomplete.

In this case, there is a real probability that respectable sources are wrong. If needs and wants are situation-related (see 1 in the proposed insertion above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Situation related selection' in the Wikipedia article proposed for deletion), then economics has been wrong for over a hundred years. Money-bargaining gives a much more realistic account of monetary exchange. Democratic theory is more principles and aspirations than a theory of how government works. The people cannot possibly govern in any direct sense. Support-bargaining gives a realistic account of political, social and intellectual processes.

My entries and proposed insertions are designated 'fringe theory', which is fair enough from the viewpoint of orthodox economic and political theory. The designation makes it easy to delete them. But bear in mind that the fringe may become the mainstream when the paradigm changes. If my entries are designated 'alternative paradigm' it may not be so easy to delete them.

Furthermore, alternative paradigms will probably not be promulgated through orthodox institutions and publishers. Orthodox, or respectable, theory uses orthodox and respectable publishers. Because of the viability condition (see 2 above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Companies as money-bargaining agencies' in the article), orthodox publishers find it hard to publish unorthodox theory. Academics generally approve, buy, read and teach orthodox theory. So unorthodox theory has to use unorthodox publishers. If Wikipedia rules out the use of unorthodox sources, it may also be excluding right theory.

Papersign (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(start addition)

Is this article not capturing the full meaning of democracy?

This article defines democracy as a form of government, but theres more meaning to the term than this. Living in a democracy does not simply reflect the right to vote, but other rights also, such as living in a locality where people have freedom of expression, a right to a private life, etc. In a democracy you would expect people to be able to exercise choice over many things not just their government --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so, properly speaking Democracy is just that. It does not imply any freedoms except the freedoms necessary for a person to vote on issues without being coerced.

How democratic a country is not determined by how many freedoms it's citizens have, but by the extent to which those citizens by voting determine the policy, law and direction of the government.Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Democracy implies that citizens participant in the governing process. It's certainly not about the right to a private life. Pericles told the Athenian assembly, "Some say that a man with no interest in politics is minding his own business. We say that such a man has no business here." Kauffner (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, essentially there are degrees of democracy. Pure democracy is a situation where every decision made by the government is made by the assembled voters. This form never existed, since it is impossible to assemble everyone for every decision. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Video: Democracy For Dummies - External Link Suggestion

Please view this film from an online youth magazine as I would like to submit it as an external link. Thanks Willsmore (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet bloc 'not democratic'

"However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc."

Despite the American POV, single party democracy such as the Soviet Union is also to be considered a variation of democracy : Regardless of it being positive or negative. So I strongly suggest that this line is erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.207.64.224 (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power" and "all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties."

Would that not mean that there are no Democracies? Because I havn't heard of any where children can be elected to government and most so called democracies children don't have universally recognized freedoms. Also democracies with elections cannot exist because the wealthy will always rule because of the power, influence and resources they have, therefore not all members of the society have equal acess to power.

Two comments:

• Children are not fully citizens until they are mature enough i.e. over 18 etc, that is why they are under the protection of their parents (certain exceptions exist when there is abuse etc). But once they become full citizens then they get (irrespectively of their status) equal rights i.e. vote, their vote has equal weight etc...
• Indeed, the rich do attempt influence how things run, but this does not change the definition of democracy.A.Cython (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Full democracy is also flawed

One person, 1 Vote is equality but is also mob rule, how can this be fair? Some people can give a large amount to their society while others give nothing, and take a lot, and yet they both have 1 vote ? How can this be just ? Where a multiple votes per person system based on what a person gives to society would be far fairer. The more one gives - tax amount, volunteer work, charity work, national sporting commitments etc, the more votes one gets while the more one takes, the few votes they receive. This system would force citizens to be more productive and not just live off welfare (other people’s money) like in many western nations ATM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.196.230 (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Communitarianism

Is this a valid discussion here? Because communitarianism seems just another totalitarian scheme, the opposite of democracy. 71.197.112.163 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC) there should be any strike role for the government that bound the government to give all the rights of the masses and should not take back step from the problem of masses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.144.46 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

United States SHALL BE RED, NOT BLUE

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

Clearly states that United States gives off the allusion of a democracy, because other countries and Wikipedians want to brainwash you braindead Americans into thinking we're one. Not not even capitalist, we're socialist capitalist now like Australia under Kevin Rudd admission.

68.109.173.136 (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)???

I agree and disagree. I agree that we are not a democracy in the U.S., but not for the reasons stated. I do not believe that political economy dictates, or is even a contributing factor, to whether a country is a democracy.

The U.S. is not a democracy because it does not have (1) equality and (2) freedom. Look at the people who have been forgotten in New Orleans; what sort of equality did they have when competing with the corporations that moved in to take their land and what remained of their possessions. To this day, very little has been done to rectify that unjust mess. (To blame Republicans in this context is futile, since the Democratic administration has done nothing either.) Most of these people were very poor to start with, so they had no bargaining or economic power to change the outcome. Their freedom was taken from them when their escape was blocked by our own military.

There are more examples than just this, and they are recent. An independent news organization, with media credentials, was raided in the hours before the start of the DNC in Minneapolis in 2008. That fails to meet the equality and freedom criteria (which I think are good ones by the way).

We could continue on and on. The fact is that the U.S. is a very poor example of democracy by the definition given in this article. That is, the country fails to meet its obligation of allowing real power to the people.

68.109.173.136 (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)halgol60

The US is democratic, it's just not a very good democracy. Your rant was clearly just anti-left wing rubbish. America is ultra-capitalist and Australia is in no way socialist unfortunately. Wikipedia is not a soap box to shout out your flawed opinions. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GUYS DEMOCRACY DOES NOT RUN HAND IN HAND WITH EQUALITY OR PEACE OR EVEN ONE UNITED COUNTRY. It simply states that a country must have a fair and competitive election to choose who shall rule the people. And a country needs to survive at least two changes of power without any uproars or overthrows of new governments to be considered a democracy. Thats it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.58.187 (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

origins

In the Book of Kings, Samuel is Prophet for a democracy, which decides to change and have a king. 71.197.112.163 (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

i cannot see how a kush kingdom incident is related in any way with the evolving of the concept of Democracy. Thus, deleting it.

Oligarchy also is distinct from democracy, specially when the circle of "oligoi" is small compared to the governed total. But the article confuses and then fuses the two systems. I suggest at least making clear this distinction.

If an established user approves of this addition, perhaps he or she would edit the entry. A link to the Wikipedia article on 'Support-Bargaining' should be included.

Opening sentance is factually wrong

I have problem with mixing ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’. These are two different things. Democracy is a method of appointing a head of state by popular vote. Now if people elect someone like Hitler, that would still be democracy. Please remove the references to ‘freedom’. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.146.186 (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Democracy is a system of government in which either the actual governing is carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to do so is granted by them (as in representative democracy)." No there is no such as "representative democracy" that is known as a republic. Notice there is no wiki article for "representive democracy". Only for "Republic" Democracy means that the population gets to vote directly on the issues and majority rules. A Democracy and a Republic are two different things, and should not be lumped together. In our specific case here in America, we are known as constitutional republic. We have never been a democracy. The difference is that I as a citizen have never had a direct vote in any major national decision in my entire lifetime, and will likely never get one. Infact , to my knowledge there has never been one in the history of this country97.91.175.129 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've heard your kind of argument many times, and it's just as wrong now as it was the first time I heard it. Representative democracy is an unwritten but clear concept in the parliamentary system. Just because you don't follow the parliamentary system in your country, it doesn't mean its concepts are moot (there IS, by the way, a Wiki entry on representative democracy). Your definition of republic as a place where citizens don't get direct votes is too simplistic. "Republic" and "democracy" can refer to different things. In most cases, republic refers to the system of government and democracy to its political ideology. So it is wrong to insist that one contradicts the other. Furthermore, if we turn to the SOURCE of much of our political vocabulary (the Greeks), you'll find that the word republic doesn't even exist in Greek, but is alternately translated as "polis" (state) or "democratia" (you guessed it). The modern Hellenic Republic, for instance, is called Elliniki Dimokratia in Greek. So let's finally give this "republic isn't a democracy" stuff a rest. Republics can be democracies (USA) and sometimes a country is one and not the other (the Roman Republic, for instance). Honestly, the only people you hear this stuff from are a certain subset of Americans who want to define the world's political systems on their own national terms. 67.193.225.132 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A simple rule to follow:

• A Republic is a system of rule that it is anything but a monarchy i.e. oligarchy, aristocracy, democracy, or modern variants such as parliamentary democracy etc. etc.
• Democracy is a system of rule where the "many" (the people of the state or more accurately all citizens) directly or indirectly govern themselves.

So it a matter of definition. As the user above mentioned above a republic can be democratic but not all republics are democracies.

Hopefully that will help.A.Cython (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for indefinite semi-protection

A quick look at the last 500 edits shows that roughly 15% of all edits are IP vandalism. I'd say this calls for indefinite semi-protection. Paradoctor (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On Anarchism

The article mentions anarchists as being divided over this subject. However, every inidividualist anarchist I've read (Murray Rothbard in particular) has opposed democracy. Anarchocollectivists tend to favor democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.65.43 (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Equality and freedom

The current version of the article says:

there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom

The footnote for this simply says: "Aristotle, Politics".

This footnote should include at least a chapter reference. Unfortunately, i didn't actually read "Politics" and maybe someone who is familiar with the book can find the definition of democracy there easily, but a chapter reference is nevertheless needed.

What's much worse, though, is that it doesn't make sense to me - how referencing one of the most ancient works on Democracy is a proof that all definitions since then include equality and freedom? The never definitions challenge each other, but no-one challenged Aristotle?

Of course, since i studied linguistics and not political science, i may be missing something. Thanks in advance for clarification. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Democracy in Athens was certainly not marked by the modern concepts of either equality or freedom. The core idea was rule by the people and nothing else. This has to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.160.115 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

All the definitions of democracy today are simply variants one way or another of Aristotle's definition. It is obscure to make a definition of something the same thing but its new definition describes something totally different. Let's tkae two examples

• Communism: Communism relies on Aristotle and Xenophon and in its essence it is a variation of Aristotle's definition where (in theory) equality is very dominant and freedom/liberty plays a second role. Check one of the many articles in literature: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Dec., 1980), pp. 351-367; Also check the following book: http://books.google.com/books?id=rA66GMF7aHYC
• On the other hand, western democracies have stronger liberties but equality is sometimes neglected, especially "political equality". For example a large fraction of the population will never in their lifetime have the chance to serve in a public office even though there are no restrictions (i.e. equality) on who to run for office... in essence today we have the negative freedom of Plato in contrast of the positive freedom that existed in Ancient Athens... for more check : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/ A.Cython (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links.

However, while i am not saying that they are wrong, the statements about "All the definitions of democracy today" are too wide to be exemplified by particular usages. For example, the same SEP, which you cite, and which is already cited in the article, in its article about democracy uses the word "equality" early in the "definition" section, while "liberty" and "freedom" are used much later and in different sections. Maybe as a linguist i am too formal about definitions of words, but to me this means that there exists a definition of democracy for which freedom is not as fundamental as the current Wikipedia article implies, and this falsifies the claim that "there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is a formal definition on either words: democracy, freedom/liberty, equality. The problem lies on that different scholars define each one of them differently. What make things more complicated is the interdependence between the meanings. For example, how people can be free unless they are subject (equally) to the same law (i.e. restrict them). In effect the freedom of one person stop at the point where someone's else freedom starts. Scholars' approach on the issue differently leading to different varieties democracies. Some advocate the "Strong Principle of Equality" which states that people are equal not only when the share the same liberties but also they have the same impact/weight on the decision of a community/nation. Other scholars dismiss this principle as impractical and ineffective. Yes I agree with you freedom is essential part of any democracy, but how this is implemented and to what degree... well that's a different story.

The paragraph in dispute was the result of a dispute over a year ago when I tried to clean up the introduction. The version before my edits: [1] The version before that the words freedom/liberty, equality were not mentioned or had secondary role.

Anyhow, I am not an expert on the issue, so if you have ideas, sources on how to improve the article please go ahead.A.Cython (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To me it doesn't make sense to include a statement such as this "...all of which include..." which not only claims knowledge of every defininition of democracy but which, even if it were demonstrated to be reasonably true through exhaustive reference, could be change by even the most radical definition of democracy if it has been published in even a single credible source. Why not change it to 'most of which include' or something else which coveys the intended information but which is not misleading or overstated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.160.115 (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be misleading and probably wrong on my opinion. Removing equality or freedom as characteristics from the definition then you describe something else, something that it is not democracy.A.Cython (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It would seem more accurate to me to replace the phrase 'equality and freedom' with the phrase 'fairness and freedom'. In a democratic state, not everyone must be equal but all people should have their views represented and a right to influence the government and question authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.132.214 (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is about whether 'freedom' is foundational to the concept of democracy, or at least as foundational as equality. My view is that it is not, and that the confusion may stem from the traditionally close relationship between democracy and liberalism. My understanding is that democracy is an answer to the question 'who should govern?', whereas liberalism is an answer to 'how should people be governed?'. More specifically, democracy is about the nature of peoples' involvement in their own rule, in contrast to liberalism, which is about peoples' relationship to state power, particularly in terms of determining the 'good' (way of life etc). In this respect, the counterpoint to democracy is authoritarianism (non-participatory rule emanates from a single point), and the counterpoint to liberalism is totalitarianism (state enforces its notion of the 'good'). That authoritarianism and totalitarianism can in practice overlap, as they did in Soviet Russia, does not mean that they operate according to a single logic.

There is clear overlap between both 'answers': to participate in one's own rule, either directly or indirectly, is to posses some degree/form of freedom. But the freedom is secondary to the notion of equality, understood in terms of political participation for citizens. A good way to demonstrate how equality (in this sense) is more important than freedom in democracy is to look at when the two come into conflict. Logically speaking, in a true democracy, an elected majority can remove the freedoms of another group within the polity. Such an outcome would be 'democratic' in the sense that it was a governing decision that represented the will of the people. It is only a notion of liberalism that introduces the philosophical logic to arrest this, by saying 'all individuals are entitled to certain freedoms regardless of majority view.' The term 'the tyranny of the majority' exists to describe this exact notion, and one reason why so many liberals in 19th century England argued against expanding the democratic franchise to include unpropertied workers. Because democracy can therefore (logically) coexist with unfreedom, it seems incorrect to say that freedom is foundational to democracy.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that most accepted definitions of democracy include the notions of the political equality of citizens and political participation, but that democracy's long practical association with liberalism has meant that many people also connect it with a liberal notion of freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Clinch (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there are different versions of democracy, some emphasise equality others freedom. However, from my understanding from literature I have read so far... democracy (with all its flavours) is defined by those two principles. How you implement those two principles (and as you say may conflict with each other) is a different story thus the many versions. Anything else is either something mixed i.e. republic or not a democracy at all.A.Cython (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to address the concern by stating that equality and freedom have been observed to be characteristics of democracy since ancient times. This is in keeping with the original citation to Aristotle's "Politics," Book Six, Part II. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Democracy is ?

What is Democracy? --Saqib ^talk 14:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Democracy

How French and Greek(athains) Democracys failed It is a form of Government that the Idea is that all people are free and equal, the meaning that not all governments are ruled be one person to the ones who clamid the idea first claimed it. Those are the Greeks as we now, but the greek democracy was not a stable one it fell by their greed and their abition for more power. The french who over throwed the king because of the stat of the government. But thier got it but thier became weak from it and thier use to be allys attacker them. Then Bonpart deffeted thier government then after he was deted with the other powers of the world the french restabled a new democracy but again the sames problem repeted it's self and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben0410 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

democarcy and traditions

every society has its own traditions,customs,social behaviour and trends.resultantly they opt for type of political system which suits them best.democracy shall not be imposed ,as it is against the very principles of democracy it self,as often demonestrated by west to implement thier form democracy not realizing the basic bases of democracy which states that its the will of the people to rule themselves as they wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.213.217 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Democracy claims.svg

The image in Democracy#20th century needs correcting: Burma/Myanmar should be red, as the caption states. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.235.33.202, 18 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Is run by the people who live under it>>

74.235.33.202 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' manner. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"18th and 19th Centuries"

The paragraphs located within the "18th and 19th centuries" starting with "During the 1820s and 1830s..." and ending with "... the Voting Rights Act of 1965" need to be removed or heavily amended. First off, this much emphasis on slavery in the U.S. has little to do with the meaning of democracy - mere mention of it should suffice as it would still maintain flow with the topic of "Democracy." Second, women's suffrage in the U.S. wasn't even mentioned in the article. How can more emphasis be placed on a small portion of American society who couldn't vote until the 19th century, when HALF of the population was unable to vote until the early 20th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.113.213 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This might be down to the fact that there is more to equality than the right to vote. White women in USA had better support and more rights than the black population in general, even though they could not vote.82.6.1.85 (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Erroneous rationale for deleting "Biblical foundations"

Regarding the recent mass deletion of an entire section, with multiple reliable sources, it seems that it may have been done without an acceptable rationale. The summary given states,

WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, 19th century American pastors are not reliable sources

The deletion, if allowed, could undermine many of the basic premises for the inclusion of material in Wikipedia:

• Casually removing verifiable material under the umbrella of "Fringe" theory, without any explanation, should be disallowed on its face. Otherwise anyone who's personal opinion disagrees with a source can simply say "Fringe" and delete it. This kind of allegation must be supported, and may require consensus if questionable;

• A similar problem happens when the deleter simply claims the material was WP:UNDUE, without explanation. By WP definition, "Undue" means that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." In this section, there were multiple reliable sources, and any lack of neutrality should not be assumed, but must be alleged and proven, with clear rationales. The deleter did none of these. Instead, they deleted the section relating to the Biblical period as if any references prior to the Greek, and Athenian, period should be automatically assumed to be incorrect;

• Implying that any citations coming from "19th century" sources should be part of the reason for deletion, is not a WP policy. It's also a bit strange coming from an editor who specializes in ancient Greek history, over 2000 years earlier!;

• Referring to legal historians, authors, published clergymen who have held office, and university presidents, as mere "American pastors," when none of the bios of those persons included that title, may itself be an expression of a non-neutral POV. It implies a brushing off of valid sources by belittling their careers and expertise, and is obviously not any kind of rationale;

• By using all of the above in a simple summary explanation for a mass deletion, with the conclusion that none of them are therefore "reliable sources," the entire rationale becomes meaningless;

• In addition, it is apparent that the deleter made no effort to read the hat note above the section:

Further information: [[:Moses]]

If they had, they would have found many other sources, equally if not more valid, than the ones deleted.

Pending a response to the missing rationales stated above, I propose the deleted material be restored. If anyone wants to offer some serious input and opinions, instead of just clicking "undo," and eliminating what may be a significant part of history, this talk page is the best place to do it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your addition was removed because it is not based on serious, on-topic academic sources. All I see are some quotes from heavily outdated 19th century sources. "The Menorah Journal" is hardly an appropriate source for your claims. We know a lot more now than we did back then. The claim that democracy has its roots in the Bible is fringe, because no serious scholars of democracy support it, only American biblical literalists who believe that everything has its roots in scripture. The claim you are making is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The sources you have provided are anything but. Athenean (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You have offered nothing but your own conclusions and opinions that the citations are "extraordinary." That may be fine for you personally, but that's no rationale for deleting cited material, especially when it meets all demands for WP:V. The fact that many, like you, don't know details about American history, such as that the engraving on the Liberty Bell or the original Seal of the United States also had Biblical sources, and reflected on the democratic ideals of the country, is no basis of "extraordinary" conclusions. If you can only delete material, instead of responding to the comments above, you will need to take your issues to those who prefer rationale responses before deletions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Try and find modern, mainstream sources, not 19th century claptrap. This article is about democracy in the general sense, not "American democracy". Also read WP:BRD, you really need to. You are rapidly becoming disruptive. The changes you are proposing are major, you need to gather a consensus before implementing them. You certainly cannot ram them through in the manner you have. Athenean (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is entire section deletion acceptable with stated rationale?

Should the deletion of an entire section (see section above,) containing sources by notable authors, along with hatnote link to further sources, be allowed? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Note also that same two deleters above deleted even larger full sections of similar material from Moses. Summary explanations given there were,

does not reflect modern mainstream scholarship, and outdated 19th-century opinions; evidently not reflected in modern scholarship by the second deleter. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. The long answer is that although large sections in articles are rarely deleted in WP. But it is required when the added material is irrelevant or not significant enough. Personally, I agree with the user Athenean since I find the biblical section misleading and not based on proper academic sources. Take for example the following quote:

• "Before the death of Moses, his law was ratified by the whole people; to whom he bequeathed a legislative code which, for the first time in the history of the world, sought the general welfare of the community, and a commonwealth in which political equality was the declared principle of the State."

The author of this quote only states that a community agreed to accept some rules (Laws) applied to everyone within the community. It says nothing about the nature of the law, which could be anything from tyranny to oligarchy. As for the so-called "political equality" this phrase comes out of nowhere without being reflected by the institutions or the Law. Nor do we have any evidence that this rules where accepted by everyone rationally (i.e. not tricking the people by saying this is God's will accept it or die in hell). Overall how this section is related to democracy and its institutions (secular forms) it is entirely unclear to me. A.Cython (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The quote you picked, like most quotes, can only be understood within the context of the section. The first sentence in the deleted section might have helped: "Various scholars assert that the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God, along with the Five books of Moses, represent the true foundation for democracy." (full section) As for your needing, "evidence that these rules where accepted by everyone rationally," that's obviously not possible. On the original material, there was a hatnote link to another article, also since deleted, which gave more details and context, including your uncertainty about the "nature of those laws," which "could be anything from tyranny to oligarchy." They were also made pretty clear from the material in context. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am at a loss by your reply!

• First of all if there is something that we cannot verify by some means (academic sources, etc) we simply remove it. And since you admit that we cannot verify whether the people at the time of Moses accepted the law rationally then what's the point having the above quote.
• What is the context of the section, because I don't see any connection whatsoever.
• There is a vast majority of scholar sources on democracy and its origins/history. The books/sources that I have so far encountered describe democracy as secular entity i.e. no gods involved. The laws of Moses on the other hand are completely interwoven with religion and faith making them more like a guideline for proper life rather than to describe a political system. Moreover I fail to see any democratic elements. None of the laws of Moses guaranteed free-speech or secured equality nor there was any debate allowed for changing any of those laws. The very fact that the laws of Moses were given by God negated any possible democratic process among the people. In a democracy the people have the power not gods.A.Cython (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't give personal opinions on any of these topics. I'm only willing to help write the article. You can read any of the references cited for more details, as this was only a section in a larger article, also deleted, so could only cover the topic in a very summary form. A few recent general books that cover much of the same material are Meacham, Jon. American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, Random House (2006), and Cherry, Conrad. God's new Israel: religious interpretations of American destiny, Univ. of North Carolina Press (1998). Both books include many of the same quotes plus a lot more, and include more context. The few quotes given are only the tip of the iceburg. I have them, so if you need some page #s let me know. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Here's a quoted section you can read online by Samuel Langdon (see p. 93) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You give an opinion by insisting on the addition of the text with biblical concepts. The issue here is whether your opinion is relevant with the article supported by reliable sources or if it is not then deleted immediately. That is why you made a request for a comment... right? As for Samuel Langdon please read the text again, the author talks about a republic (more precise the author has in his mind the American republic) not a democracy! Moreover, the author does not provide sources to verify his claims. He takes way too many assumptions concerning the consent of the people. For example concerning Moses time, just because each tribe had a prince it does mean he democratically chosen to represent them with delegations with other tribes. In fact this is not even republic. The very existence of a prince indicate an aristocracy and that's not my opinion, please find out what the definitions of democracy, republic, oligarchy, aristocracy, tyranny etc. The reason I am saying this is that you and the author confuse the definitions between those words. And by the way Samuel Langdon is an expert on religious studies... on what grounds he is an expert on political science/history? His opinions are in direct conflict with top political scholars such as John Dunn who quite bluntly states in his books that democracy started in ancient Athens with not a single word on religion or Moses. Are you actually saying to us we should weight the opinion of a scholar of religious studies the same with someone of political science? Finally, even if we accept the notion that the people self-organised in a way that that might resembled a republic (a huge if due to obvious lack of evidence) or some other form of oligarchy there are no links whatsoever with future generations or influenced other civilisations. Therefore, the sources you presented although they interesting to be read they are completely irrelevant with the concept of democracy and with the current article.

I will not continue the discussion. There was a request for a comment and in my opinion the sources presented come from religious scholars/people who are not suited to rewrite the history of democracy especially when the vast majority of literature from historians and political science scholars says otherwise.A.Cython (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty hard to add material to a section called "Biblical foundations" [of democracy] without referring to sources related to religion. As for Samuel Langdon, who you reject as a valid source, simply because he was a biblical scholar, note that he was also an educator and president of Harvard. As for non-biblical, and more political and historical scholars, the original quote you gave earlier was from Thomas Erskine May's Democracy in Europe, and you can read it here. He was one of the authors of the Constitution of the United Kingdom. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Facts, facts, and facts please. At the page from Democracy in Europe describes the jewish self-organisation as a "theocratic federal republic". And this is exactly the context you were mentioning above. Again this description has absolutely no relation with democracy! As for Samuel Langdon i do not challenge him on matters of religious aspects nor his social-networking that allowed him to climb politically at Harvard University but his expertise is completely irrelevant with political science. Moreover, I need to remind you the time in which he lived (1723-1797) although his writing as I said above are interesting and respectable cannot be taken in full account compared to more recent scholars on the same field. In our case: democracy, political science or history is what required to describe a political system and its history. Furthermore I do not find and source stating that he was one of the authors of the constitution of UK. On the other hand, John Dunn is a leading scholar on political science at Oxford university and quite modern (he is still alive). Of course I can start enumerating the whole community of political scientist and historians that quite clear state that the foundations of democracy were place in Athens, but I hope there is no need to resolve the issue this way. Finally, if there are no facts on "Biblical foundations" then there is no need to spend our energy altering the article.A.Cython (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Defining words

It's apparently a matter of definitions. Our own WP explanation of republic states "In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy. . . " But if you don't trust Wikipedia (joke), the The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, states, Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable. Even the Oxford Guide to the United States Government describes a "republic" as a "representative democracy."

OK, the exact definition may have changed throughout history. It may mean different things to other nations today. Fine, But WP can include all acceptable definitions, and doesn't need to choose one over the other. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually no. You obviously you haven't followed my advice. Let's start from the basics shall we... From the Oxford dictionary:

• Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
• Democracy: "A form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives."

These definitions seem similar but they are very different. Republic is general term to define anything but a monarchy, that is how it was defined in Rome and that is how is still defined, its meaning has not changed, sorry to disappoint you. Within this definition you can have a representative democracy but also the Republic of Rome which was clearly an oligarchy. A republic may be a representative democracy but democracy is not the same with a republic. A representative democracy is a "diluted" form a democracy, so even if you have a system of rule that is an oligarchy/aristocracy but allows a limited representation then you can call it a republic, but that's hardly representative of the ideals of democracy. What is more interesting is that each time you bring some source here you negate your previous sources. For example based on the definition you brought here you simply negated the term "republic" from the "theocratic federal republic". That's because a prince is not elected by the people thus not a representative in democratic way or even in a republic way. Have a nice day...A.Cython (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm here for the RfC. The stuff about Moses and democracy should be excluded because it doesn't represent a notable POV. Leadwind (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Moses and democracy

In response to the RfC, I comment that the only link between democracy and Moses is some desperately strained theology. Reliable sources have been given for this theology, but it is notable only in that it shows the lengths that some people will go to in order to identify their faith with their politics. It has nothing to add to any encyclopedic discussion of democracy. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto - Wikiwatcher, cease & desist. NickCT (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does help. It helps give others an excellent example of how not to assume good faith:

it is notable only in that it shows the lengths that some people will go to in order to identify their faith with their politics. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even the existence of Moses is not supported by evidence... [2]71.230.200.66 (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How come people always manage to go on a tangent to express their poorly thought out (and often fringe) ideas, in the most irrelevant way? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Democracy does NOT imply equality

In a pure democracy, we have equal voting power, but that's it. The masses, or their representatives, can enact discriminatory laws if they want. I'm not saying whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (although I am saying that it's an actual thing, e.g., with bans against gay marriage, unequal tax treatment of varying classes, etc.). I'm just saying that democracy and equality are each two separate concepts, both of which are generally valued by Americans (myself included), but that they're independent of each other.

[Our democracy happens to have both, because we currently have a system protecting (1) majority rule AND (2) minority rights.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.63.175 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not confuse a republic with some democratic elements such as in the case of the USA with what democracy represents. When Benjamin Franklin was asked whether the new (at that time) American system of rule was a democracy or a republic he answered: "a republic and if you can keep it". Democracy is defined by two concepts: equality and freedom see from Aristotle to John Dunn. Although this is a nice definition on the practical aspects of implementing in real life that's another story.A.Cython (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the diary of signer James McHenry, Franklin was asked, "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?" [Emphasis mine.] Whatever the intentions of the founders, through Amendments to the United States Constitution the old republic has steadily evolved to become more democratic. In my judgment, the United States fits a modern definition of democracy. Woodrow Wilson said "We must make the world safe for democracy," and I think it's safe to say that if asked for examples of democracies he would have mentioned the U.S. and Great Britain. Since no nation this side of Armaggedon will ever again be governed according to the principles of a Greek city-state (and just how democratic were they by modern standards, anyway?), I would say that those who can be counted on to chime in with "No, it's a republic," have a point (and likely an agenda), but it's a rather small and pedantic one. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

May I add the following: recently scholars have examined the Athenian model (ok you have to exclude the fact the there were no women's rights and there was slavery) the Athenians were more "actively free" and enjoyed more fair political equality than any other modern society. Certainly modern societies have made huge steps forward but they done so by evolving from either a Roman/aristocratic model and ensured no abuse of the system will occur. That is radical different from what the Greeks thought about democracy i.e. elevation of the demos where citizens where not only free to speak their mind but actually participate into the decision making (something that any representation will prohibit). Nevertheless, both systems are democratic since they have as guiding principles: freedom and equality. However, we should always remember that the nature of institution that we have today do not promote democratic ideas since there were practiced in Rome and Sparta and not in Athens. As for having an agenda you suggest... is it possible for me to assume that anyone who masks an elective oligarchy as democracy has also an agenda on his/her own? A.Cython (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point; however, see "Politics" Book Six, Part IV in which Aristotle describes the democracy in Mantinea: "Hence it is both expedient and customary in the aforementioned type of democracy that all should elect to offices, and conduct scrutinies, and sit in the law-courts, but that the great offices should be filled up by election and from persons having a qualification." Aristotle describes several forms of democracy, which he describes as the opposite of an oligarchy. He describes a polity as being a form of government with elements of both. If we were to limit ourselves to Aristotelian terminology, the government of the U.S. would fit into his definition of a polity; but if we are to come to grips with the term "Democracy" as used by, say, John Dewey in his book "Democracy and Education," we should perhaps allow ourselves the latitude to diverge somewhat from Aristotle (who isn't entirely consistent in his description of democracy himself).

In any case, this article could use some serious clean-up. The introduction is fairly sloppy right now. I spent quite a while figuring out how to make a too-general statement about "equality and freedom" more accurate and removed a pair of "ref" tags from around a statement that was clearly meant to be part of the article, but which is also clearly wrong:

These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no restrictions can apply to anyone wanting to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[5][6]

E.g., counter examples to: "every vote has equal weight"--Montanans and Californians each have two Senators; to "no restrictions can apply"--age requirements for federal offices. Then there's this:

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[7][8] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated – through the use of balances – to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.[9][10][11]

What is meant by "carefully legislated" and "an uneven distribution of political power, such as separation of powers"?

Cleaning this up and having it make sense with proper references requires more energy than I have right now. I plan to chip away at it. Care to help? (One solution might be to read the original author's references and make the article conform to what they actually say.) A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is badly written and it needs a serious clean-up. Though I have to disagree that the American system fits with the view of Aristotle. One great criticism is that in Aristotle's view lies that all should be ruled and rule in turns, now that is not happening in America or any other representative democracy. To see this more clearly just try to answer what is the fraction of the population that within in the average lifetime will be in a public office (legislative or executive position). For ancient Athens (and other similar city-states) the answer to that question would be probably 90-100% among their citizens and if we want to be strict i.e. we include women, slaves and foreigners (i.e. the whole population) then it drops to 10-15%, which is still enormously high by today's standards.

It is very important to keep in mind that the Athenian democracy despite its faults is essentially the main point of reference for the definition of democracy (even today to evaluate the American system scholars go back to Athens and make comparisons, e.g. see J. Dunn books, J. Ober). Today's democracy or should I say representative democracy is a construct that came out during the American and French revolutions and attempted to marry the ancient demos but at the same time providing a satisfactory solution to the problems arising from nation scaling both in population and size. And finally, yes, equality is a characteristic of democracy see the infamous quote of Aristotle's:

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

The key problem is that if you remove equality then the freedom of some of the citizens are in danger (from those with more power), which in turn will lead some form of oligarchy... Today's belief is that the best way to preserve the individual's freedom is by having a unequal system of rule (i.e. not democratic institutions) but at the same time there are strong constitutional checks and regulations that prevent any accumulation of power to one or few people. In other words the few still have power over the many but the laws prevent them from abusing their position. Hopefully that will help you.A.Cython (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Several thoughts: 1) Aristotle did not invent democracy but only described it as practiced by various city-states (and not just Athens). 2) He describes democracy and oligarchy as opposites and often uses these terms in a relativistic sense of one form of government being more democratic or oligarchic than another. 3) Aristotle is not consistent throughout Politics; e.g., his description of the Mantinean government as a democracy is inconsistent with his insistence elsewhere that all must have the opportunity to rule, if necessary by choosing officeholders by lot (but his description of the Mantinean government as democratic is just as much a part of Politics as the more general, theoretical discussions). 4) It is fairly obvious that if democratic forms are to be extended from the ancient greek city-state to the modern nation-state, that not everyone will have the opportunity to be a legislator; however, as long as the eligibility for office is determined by age, citizenship and non-criminal status, the opportunity to serve in office is very broad. If one substitutes the opportunity to serve in office for the notion that all will serve in turns (or be chosen by lot, which is democratic according to Aristotle) the way becomes clear. 5) As you pointed out earlier about the Athenian democracy, "ok you have to exclude the fact the there were no women's rights and there was slavery." Indeed. Similarly, I think one could say about modern democracy, "ok you have to exclude the fact that not everyone will have a turn in office actually running the government." After all, which is more democratic in the relativistic sense in which Aristotle himself used the term: a system in which women can't participate in government or one in which they can with the same eligibility to serve in office as any other citizen. I would argue that there is a great deal of equality in the governance of the United States in terms of citizens being equally eligible to hold office and in terms of citizenship being more broadly held than in ancient times.

The fact that few will actually serve in office might be included in a section in the article on "Problems of Modern Democracy." That section might also include discussion of distortions to the Democratic ideal caused by the role of money in politics. In short, while reference must be made to Aristotle, I don't think Aristotle should be a stumbling block preventing a good article describing modern Democratic forms of government including the government of the United States. Another section might be "Differences between Ancient and Modern Concepts of Democracy." Finally, there should probably be an entirely separate article on Democratic Theory in a lot of the above could be rehashed with appropriate citations.

When John Roberts accepted nomination to the Supreme Court, he closed with a remark acknowledging his children, "who remind me every day why it is so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy." That is the sense of the word "democracy" that I believe an encyclopedia article must explain for its readers. References to Aristotle should shed light on the endeavor, not derail it. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section more an essay

This section, with its many sub-sections, cites only a few sources which, in any case, draw conclusions not in the source. Overall, the section is of very poor quality and reads like snippets from 10th grade essays, except without sources. Nor should they be made into a lengthy list in the TOC. Needs major improvement or should be pruned. Support?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

After two days of no comments or attempts to repair the section, I trimmed off sections that were tagged and/or uncited and gave a summary explanation referring to this talk. However, the material was restored in its entirety without any rationale. Am hoping some others can offer comments noting that numerous sections of OR, especially within a "criticism" section, require sources, not personal opinions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your comments, Wikiwatcher1. However, there are sections that need citations rather than deletion, and I suspect that such citations could be produced - the views are not particularly well-expressed but some at least represent significant points of view. I would think it worth pruning the ToC and some,not all, of the essay-style material, and inserting tags, rather than deleting the lot. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As you know, some of the uncited sections have been tagged for a long time without result. You may be right, that "some at least represent significant points of view," which adds a point of view issue. But once we selectively allow "essay-like material," as you note, and selectively delete material based on what would be no more than personal opinions of what we like, then the essence of the Wikipedia Guidelines, verifiable sources, gets diluted and undermined. Maybe if this article was about the plot of a TV sitcom, we could let OR ride a bit more, but for "Democracy"? In any case, Richard, by not agreeing that major edits made without a rationale can lead to problems, another key policy is being ignored. Without some serious effort to play by the rules, I think a POV tag and RfC will be helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Democracy and Islam

While Paul( WHO IS SECULAR) Ordered his Followers to Submit To Any Authority like [Roman Empire ]..Coz Paul think that These Authorities are God Ordained ROM 13:1-6.Allah Ordered all Muslims male and female To Rule Our Own Affair DIRECTLY.DIRECT DEMOCRACY [042:038] according to Quranic Principles THE CONSTITUTION.

Notice also that THERE IS NO RIGHTS FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE DIRECTLY IN THE SECULAR AMERICAN CONSTITUTION ( IT IS THE STATE NOT PEOPLE RIGHT TO VOTE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.91.160 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular Rule as a facade

"In a liberal democracy such as Canada, the following paradox persists. Even though the majority of respondents answer yes to the question: 'Are there too many immigrant arrivals each year?' immigrant numbers continue to rise until a critical set of economic costs appear."

Can someone re-write or delete this as it seems very unclear to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastDodo (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is a battleground and is inherently flawed.

I personally do not see how this can ever be settled because there is so much junk passing as academic research and mere allusion to fact. Footnote 70 is purely conjecture, I am still trying to find where Benjamin Franklin actually said "A republic ma'am, if you can keep it" surely not in the source provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.40.55 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, Fifteenth Edition, page 348

⁵ In Philadelpha, a Mrs.. Powell "asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy? A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it." Recorded by JAMES MCHENRY, one of Washington's aides, in his diary, published in the American Historical Review, XI [1906], 618.

A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved this thread into its proper chrono order. If this represents the character of the criticism which is the basis of the current two year old tag, I will after review remove it. Lycurgus (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Decided not to remove it, there are sections that need cleanup. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please drop "Social democracy" from the socialist chapter - they are and always have been anti-socialist.

Hi Just taking the name socialist or social democratic in a party name in order to fool citizens can not be the criteria to call a party a socialist party. The conditional criteria for socialism is the non-existence of capitalism. If the aim is, that capitalists run the production of goods in a society, then they are no socialists. That is what all social-democratic parties do world-wide - and even some parties called "socialist" parties. We need approvable criteria for calling a party or groups socialist or not. To just take opinions and bad mood of right-wingers who define even charity or friendlyness as socialistic, makes no sense and should not happen in Wikipedia. --91.12.82.43 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in europe there are countless parties that call themselves socialist, but do not want to eliminate capitalism. There has been a change of the meaning of the word socialist, and social democracy is even something completely different. I propose just using the word communism for the USSR, China etc economic model. But social democracy is even entirely different than socialism. so that shouldn't even be part of the discussion. So i agree that it should not be in the socialist chapter, but disagree that these parties are 'fooling' citizens.--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

almost all countries claim to be democratic, but not all are

In the map of the world showing countries claiming to be democratic, many of the countries are in reality not really democratic; North korea, most of africa, etc. Allthough this map is interesting and should not be deleted, and it does say that the map shows countries that claim to be democratic, and not those that actually are, there should be a clear explanation that in practice, many countries are not democratic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoincidentalBystander (talk • contribs) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the map as it was not sourced and claimed to present the "de jure" status of democracy in the world, which is false. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

since myanmar holds eletion it conciders itsels as democratic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.249.84 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I thoght about it and to tell the truth i dont think myanmar really is democratic all though it can be considerd by most becuse it holds an election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonekowld (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Local democracy

I think it is much necessary to add a topic on local democracy; it is of course related to democracy and of high importance. There are many research titles about the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neshat23 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Democracy|p00547jm}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from 71.98.173.243, 26 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

wiki 71.98.173.243 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

San Marino, Italy

San Marino, the principality in Italy claims to be the oldest continuing democracy in the world. However it has no mention in this article. Perhaps it should... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.98.69 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias against Athens

No attempt is made to specifically address the widely cast academic assertion that Athens' was the first democracy ever. (See Donald Kagan and Josiah Ober.) Also, judging Athens' democracy on the basis of our current--but very recent--standard that all adult citizens must be allowed to vote is myopic and displays only a thin-veneer understanding of the history of the most common notions about democracy. It's absurd to condemn the Athenian democracy because women and slaves weren't allowed to vote. We're talking about a 2,500-year-old society that matched almost exactly the United States voting laws up until less than 100 years ago. To judge the Athenian democracy you have to employ at least a little historical context. You can't use the freedoms we have now as a litmus test for deciding what's a democracy and what isn't over the course of human history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.50.202 (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a valid point... though there are so many things we can say about Athens that the article will end up as the story of Athens rather of democracy. If you have specific ideas how to highlight this feel free to propose them and/or add them in the text. Bear in mind that modern (representative) democracies have little or almost no resemblance to the Athenians democracy, so for this article to be complete we have to talk about Rome and Sparta since these were models to mimic and the Athenian model to avoid. A.Cython (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Threats to democracy

Perhaps the article could mention what the threats to democracy are. Some examples that spring to mind: freedom of speech, concentration of media ownership, regime change (by internal or external powers), Naomi Wolf's 10 steps [3]). Also interesting would be cases where democracy has been replaced with another political system. pgr94 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is only one Democracy

Any adjective in front of the word democracy is changing its meaning. There is no direct and representative democracy.

there is only one democracy. The power produced and performed by people alone.

The so-called Representative democracy is a form of oligarchy.

The ancient Athenians during the Peloponnesian War overthrew the Republic and gave the power to 5000 wealthy citizens (House of tyranny or five thousand) only for 4 months.Γιάννης Α. Λώλος p.6 Because they understood that any power when given to a few, corrupt.

To look at the percentages, 5000 for a total of 15000 to 20000 Athenians rate is at least 25%. That the Athenians called oligarchs while we consider the formation of 'participatory democracy', Democracy? While this is 100% oligarchic formation with highly misleading name.

The exercise policy of a few members out of millions of citizens has nothing to do with the Democracy.

Please remove from the article any parts which refers to "representative democracy" to oligarchy article.

--Filippos2 (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Viking Althing was a primitive form of democracy?

Over the years I have heard several times that the Viking Althing was a primitive form of democracy and that certain democracy concepts were passed on to the American Indians when the Vikings came to Vinland. Then the Indians passed on some of these same concepts to the American colonists who intern used these concepts in the Constitution. I am skeptical and was wondering if anyone else can shed light on this subject. If this has some truth to it, then it should be included in the history section of the article. Septagram (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia

I think it would be relevant to add what is going on in Tunisia, but maybe not right away so we see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.227.12 (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"perfect" democracies?

From the article: "The lightest countries are perfect democracies, while the darkest countries are considered the least democratic." Perfection is not very common in this world. I would change this to "The lightest countries are considered more democratic than the darkest countries"; avoiding the use of the word perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.125.19 (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Psuedo democracies

The comment "Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, and Deliberative Democracy are pseudo-democracies because they do not allow direct citizen participation in the legislative process." is contentious: the term "pseudo-democracy" generally refers to an illiberal democracy or "hybrid regime" where citizens "are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties". There is a massive gulf between these and representative Western democracies where, in general, societies are more open and citizens better-informed. 77.101.222.142 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Iroquois

Now I love these guys as much as the next, but this passage doesn't seem relevant. It is part of a list of government types, which my sesame street honed skills tells me it doesn't belong. If there is a specific form of government used exclusively or primarily by Iroquois, then this section does not mention it. mostly it is about a possible connection between the US Constitution and the Iroquois. it should be revised or deleted. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Rule" of "all" the people?

The article opens with the grand statement of "all citizens" being equal, then shortly thereafter tells us "democracy" from the Greek means "rule" of the people. Really? Are both statements in fact accurate? Isn't the Greek closer to "people power" or "empowered people" or "power from the people?" Does democracy automatically confer this empowerment to "all citizens?" Then the alleged scholarly work providing the apparently definitive meaning of the Greek cannot be browsed due to Tufts' IT security provisions. If each statement is in fact accurate, where are the useful references to back them up? I'm not suggesting they are inaccurate (though they might be), but rather pointing out there is no supporting source information for either.

Referenced link: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914202111/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry%3d%2324422

24.214.238.86 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

The article is off to a really bad start: "Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." If the owner of my local shop decided to close it down I would have to walk a long way to get my groceries. That decision would affect my life. I would have no say in that decision, let alone an equal say. "Decisions that affect their lives" is just absurdly broad. It's not even true of political decisions that affect our lives. Governments make all kinds of decisions and laws and citizens don't have any say in except to choose the decision makers.Even in a modern direct democracy model the people aren't consulted on EVERY decision. How about "Democracy is a system of government characterised by some form of participation from the governed populace," and then something about the word meaning rule by the people and we could take it from there? 46.11.39.96 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Elimination of Presidential Democracy

Granted, I'm no Political Science major, but it seems to me that the idea of a Presidential Democracy, and the concept of a a Republic are synonymous. As I've never heard the term Presidential Democracy, nor Semi Presidential Democracy and the idea of a Republic (which is noted under representative democracy, and is probably worth noting somewhere in the the article I think it best if Presidential and Semi Presidential were eliminated.

Sovereignlance (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Presidential Democracy" is the same as as "the system of governance in a Presidential Republic," but the first is shorter so why not keep it. A Semi-Presidential Republic is one with president as head of STATE, and the PM as head of GOVERNMENT, and that form is rather common in Europe (Iceland, Finland, France, and so on). It is the republic-equivalent of a constitutional monarchy, with an elected president taking the place of the monarch. So no, they cannot be neither merged, nor eliminated.

However, to mention Liberal Democracy after those is confusing and potentially misleading, as if that was a forth option. It is not, it is a different dimension of democracy. Some "democracies" such as the one in Venezuela at present claim to be democracies but explicitly reject Liberal Democracy as a form of government. For many in the rest of the world, there can be no democracy if it is not a liberal democracy. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Consistency with Democracy

The page notes several forms of Democracy, yet almost non of those are noted sub lists of Democracy on the list of Governments bar on the side (linking to the politics portal). To me, it seems that this lack of congruence could be problematic. Sovereignlance (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Source needed

The following recently placed text needs a source: "There were exceptions to this rule though, as Lydia Chapin Taft earned the vote in 1756 and free blacks were allowed to vote in Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Delaware, and Pennsylvania." WCCasey (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

More precise, and generally acceptable definition of democracy

I used terms like pure and ideal because nowhere in the world has everyone had equal say in "decisions affecting them" beyond a tiny group. And that is not even the purpose of most democratic governments I've studied or heard of.

Also, people have frequently said that (the government of blank) is "not a democracy", meaning (when I press them) that it isn't a Direct democracy. They seem unaware of the terms Indirect democracy or Representative democracy. Perhaps my friends were thinking in slogans. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is all wrong

This article makes a mess of different terms and defines as a democracy what it is not. For instance, nowadays constitutional monarchies and republics aren't democracies. the constitutional republics were created to avoid some evils of democracy typically found in mobocracies (aka ochlocracies), which in contrast are true democracies. A constitutional republic can use different democratic mechanisms in the election of the members of the legislative and executive (and sometimes the judicial power), and even a democratic mechanism to modify the Constitution, nevertheless, the rule of law is what prevails instead of the will of the majority of citizens. 81.60.184.130 (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased coverage of 20th and 21st century

The two sentences about Germany: "The successful democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany [...]" and "However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc."

The use of words like "successful" or "forced" show an obvious bias. This and similar parts of the article might need some cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxbunny (talk • contribs) 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Inherent Contradiction

It seems to me that "While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy'" and the first line of the article which states what a pure form of democracy is contradicts itself. First, we state what democracy is (and therefore define the system of government) while later we state that there is no definition. I would then propose that the quoted line or something to its effect be moved to the first line while the actual fist line be removed; though it should be noted that in some cases that serves as a definition for democracy. Sovereignlance (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, i think the statement about "While there is no universally accepted definition...", which from a magazine Economist, is not very reliable. I would prefer it to be removed. Economist is not famous for its academic level and as a market oriented magazine it would easily lose its objectivity. I think democracy has a pretty clear definition given from Aristotle long time ago and since then there are only variations from the original. What a journalist might be confused by is the large number of variations of system of rule that exist, which have some degree of democratic elements and that although some tout them democracies they are not. If anyone objects, i would remove that particular statement.A.Cython (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that these two paragraphs definitely need to be merged or changed, and I would suggest something similar to the following:

"Democracy is a term with no universal definition, however equality and freedom have both been long-standing characteristics, featuring since ancient times. Based on these characteristics ideal democracy tends to feature government by consent with political equality, rule of law, legitimized rights and liberties, with citizens having equal access to the legislative processes."

However I haven't edited the page as this likely needs grammatical and general improvement, as I've cut a significant amount out and I've replaced 'equality before the law' with 'rule of law' which as far as I am aware are the same things, although I am not certain. 92.4.139.51 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion resource

• Do Drones Undermine Democracy? by Peter W. Singer from Washington D.C. published New York Times January 21, 2012
  • Response Letter When the Oligarchy Decides A version of this letter appeared in print on January 24, 2012, in The International Herald Tribune.

See Oligarchy and Second Thoughts on James Burnham 99.190.87.151 (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything you have in mind regarding this article with those links? (The first one is specifically concerned with US politics, the second one doesn't mention "democracy" at all, and the following are just wikilinks). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Excessive Introduction

Much of the text in the introduction seems to be too detailed, and is repeated in subsequent sections. For example, the final paragraph of the introduction talks about the origins of democracy in Ancient times, and then this information is repeated in different wording directly after it. Much of the final paragraph could probably be deleted. The introduction needs refining. Frustra Scientia (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Democratization

Democracy has no manual. It is a universally used label even by conservative political forces. On the other hand, the Cinderella of democracy, "democratization" as a political term points to the evolution in the field.

Especially in political science the theories are born outside institutions. Here are the examples:

(1) Political Integration

Potent political foundation consists of basic principles of economic security and citizen participation.

The right to ratification of legislation by citizenry will be the turning point for evolving democracies bringing vast consequences.

The condition: Integration of citizenry with their local government branches, financed publicly and privately in respect of their political character, through dedicated points of contact and its respective populist parties.

(2)

Unified Political Theory proposes a "one stop political shopping" where all political parties operate from one location , fully accessible to the public.

UPT is acknowledging "point of contact" roles of populist political parties as active agents of Public-Government Integration.

Publicly founded Civic Information Channels, evolving around its respective parities are best candidates for impartial, dedicated information platforms for exchanging and processing information.

Public ratification of legislation as optimal way to secure the output of cohesive legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optura (talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

δῆμος

Maybe it should be noted somewhere in the article that the Greek δῆμος Demos in antiquity was not a neutral word for the "people", but had a touch of disdain included. δῆμος referred to the ordinary people, the plebs, who were not necessarily thought to have the competence to make the decisions asked of them. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive democracy

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Should it be mentioned?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. I don't know the answer, but I think it has more to do with elite theory, and the tendency of ruling classes to limit democracy in order to allow it to function effectively (in other words, on their terms and for their benefit). That's the theory, anyway. In the United States, you see this play out in terms of media ownership—the centralization and monopolization of the media acts as a check on excessive democracy as it allows for the dissemination of one, single dominant narrative and drowns out competing, minority POV. In another example, recent so-called "populist" movements that were funded by the elite class have managed to bring gridlock to Washington which has made it less than functional for any class other than the elite class. This is another example of a check on excessive democracy: a popular movement is funded to rally against the government and to represent the "little guy", but as it turns out, the end result of the movement is to reinforce the values of the ruling, elite class. The threat of excessive democracy is often described as a threat to the functioning of good government, a government that, according to elite theory, can only be run by "dispassionate" elites. However, as it turns out, the concerns about "excessive democracy" are really concerns about threats to the ruling class, not threats to good government. It's a very confusing term, so I would argue against using it without qualification, since it can be used to mean several different things. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What you just wrote is pretty close to copy/pastable into the article if sources can be found. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's just commentary on the topic. It sounds like you are still interested in adding something about "excessive democracy". Did you have any specific sources in mind? Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, I'm interested in seeing something added about "excessive democracy". Personally I wouldn't know where to begin, and am quite out of my depth. I just read something about it somewhere. I forget where. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, there's some material here: American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the United States Constitution. That might be a good place to start. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• "When Americans did come to construct a new government for themselves, in the wake of their victory over Britain, they naturally turned to the familiar Roman republic for inspiration, but also for a warning. Benjamin Rush articulated the basic republican conception of popular sovereignty, according to which 'all power' was 'derived from the people', but never rested in them, or was carefully circumscribed when it did. Excessive democracy led to Caesar's victory in Rome, and Americans such as 'Sidney' considered it essential that republics maintain strong senates. 'Harrington' added that 'liberty' required 'mixed' and 'balanced' government to avoid 'Caesars', 'Cromwells', and 'corruption'. The vices to be guarded against were the 'ambition' and 'avarice' of the senate and people, which had ruined Rome. The solution was to balance ambition against ambition, so that the republic would be protected against demagogues, even when public 'virtue' was wanting in its leaders." (28)
• "Rome declined, and the rule of law and liberty collapsed, when the people came to enact laws (plebiscita) without the concurrence of the senate. The people acted against 'the very principles' of their government 'to establish a democracy' and threaten 'the authority of the senate'. Rome was strongest when popular deference to senatorial power made it appear (as Polybius had said) to be an 'aristocracy'. When the people began to usurp executive and judicial responsibilities under the Gracchi, the senate was 'no longer able to withstand' their power and Roman liberty perished with the balance in its ancient constitution. Rome's liberty had depended on a proper balance between senatorial and popular power. First the senate was too powerful, then the people. The magistrates never had sufficient strength to balance the conflict, and 'the harmony of the three powers was lost'. Montesquieu thought that the proportion of liberty in any given government could be measured in the distribution and balance of the three constituent powers of government." (170)

Republic/democracy

From the article: "Democracy is often confused with the republic form of government. In some definitions of "republic," a republic is a form of democracy. Other definitions make "republic" a separate, unrelated term." The last sentence in this paragraph references a definition in the Oxford dictionary. I looked up the definition of "republic" in the Oxford online edition dictionary: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
I have a hard time seeing how this definition says that "republic" is a "separate, unrelated term" from "democracy". Nowhere does it say it explicitly and it even characterizes a republic as a place where the "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives.". I probably do not need to add that it's a very common trait among democracies that "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives".
I'd also like to see a source stating that "democracy" and "republican forms of governance" are often confused. 84.215.78.103 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A republic is a form of state where de jure the populace form the sovereign. However, a republic does not always have a democracy as form of rule (cf. dictatorships). ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We know things like "islamic republics" which aren't democratic, yes. But to call that an actual republic, you would have to look away from the above definition, see for example how it defines a republic as a place were "supreme power is held by the people...", hence de facto, not de jure. I'm still curious as to how the term "republic" is an unrelated term to "democracy" when one and the other often go hand in hand. I'm also curious about how the definition of one word can make another term unrelated and how these words are often confused. It seems to me there's a huge amount of interpretation going here. 84.215.78.103 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Republic" says nothing about who holds actual power. "Democracy" does. Republic is a form of state. Democracy is a form of governance. Since in a republic de jure the people are the sovereign, the natural form of governance would of course be democracy, in which the people delegate their power to representatives for the common good. However, in many cases the exercise of power by the people becomes/became restricted or inhibited and monopolized by a single person or a group of persons. That's when a republic is not a democracy. The 20th century is full of examples.

I suggest you read up on Greek and Roman history to get to know what "republic" and "democracy" mean.

And get an account. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is getting boring when you try to lecture me when it is very clear that you really don't understand that what you discuss is completely different than what I discuss. I think you make two mistakes here: 1) You assume language and words do not change, which it does. You can't read Greek or Roman history to understand what a "republic" or a "democracy" is. You can understand some foundations of it, but here we talk contemporary terms, take a look at the phrase I quote from the article above. By our understanding today, there was no democracy in Ancient Greece so what is there to learn from it? That it's enough that only a few get to vote? 2) You offer your definition at a time when it really is not interesting. This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia cannot simply post Cush's opinions, it relies on sources. And sorry, but you disagree with Oxford on what the term "republic" means, note for example how definitive this definition is: The "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives." You can run around all you want with this de jure nonsense, the definition clearly points to this being de facto.

I said this already, but I say it again. How does Oxford work as a source that says that a "democracy" is an unrelated term from "democracy" when the sourced definition encompasses a clear democratic principle? If you want to partake in this discussion, this should be your concern, not trying to lecture or insult others. 84.215.78.103 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You just don't get it. I'll give you examples: Libya under Gaddafi was a republic, but no democracy. It was de jure ruled by the people, but de facto by a dictator. And the UK is a democracy, but no republic. It is de jure ruled by a monarch, but de facto by the people. How is it hard to understand that there is no correlation necessary? And I only suggested you read up Greek and Roman history to get an idea where the terms come from. I know exactly what the words mean today. But clearly you do not. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, I worked on stuff like this for years and you're just not right. First, I don't really see many Republican elements in Libya. I'd like to know by what definition you count it as a republic. Is it enough that it is led by one guy? Look at the first sentence on the Wiki page of the term "Republic". Libya was no republic by that standard. Sure, it had it in its name, but East Germany was also called Deutsche Demokratische Republik. Second, you dive into this de jure/de facto thing again, but this time around you argue that the UK is de jure ruled by a monarch. Seriously, it's called a constitutional monarchy, but to determine who de jure holds power you need to look at the system, not the branding of it. I don't know the UK constitution well, but there's either parliamentarism written into it, removing the monarch from most power, or it is established through constitutional convention that the country is a parliamentarian one. Either way, the power de jure rests with anyone but the monarch. No really, just get rid of these terms because they are completely unrelated to the point I brought up. There's no source whatsoever presented that argues that a republic is an unrelated term from democracy, the only thing you come up with is that the meaning has been different and the word has been used differently. It hardly changes the meaning of the word. It's thus tempting to remove a claim not properly referenced. 84.215.78.103 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right, you don't know the British constitution that well. The UK is a monarchy in which sovereignty (that is the ultimate authority) lies with the Crown. All other institutions that exercise authority and/or power (power being the ability to do things people would not otherwise approve of or make them do things they otherwise would not do and authority being the right to do those things) exercise such things either by the authority of the Crown or the authority of another institution that gets its authority from the Crown. For example, Parliament obtains its authority from the Crown through the principle of the Crown in Parliament. Her Majesty's Government has its authority from Parliament (indirectly from the Crown) and also directly from the Crown, utilising the Royal Prerogative. The devolved assemblies receive their authority from Parliament (indirectly from the Crown). The list goes on. Ultimate executive, legislative and judicial authority rests with the Crown (the Crown is sovereign - or exercises 'de jure power' as some of you have liked to describe it). Now, it is true to say that the Crown exercises very little power but then who really exercises power in most countries? To an extent the electorate (but hardly - as in most democracies including America). Also the legislature, judiciary and executive exercise power (but they rely on the use of other institutions, agencies, organisations and bodies to enforce their instructions), the police and, probably in most countries, the singly most powerful body would be the military. It is worth distinguishing between soft power (the ability to get people to do things by persuasion or on the ground that they feel they should - to an extent this can involve bluffing e.g. some people obey the law not because it is enforced but because they feel they should obey it and/or they believe it might be enforced even if it won't or can't be enforced) and hard power (the ability to use physical force to achieve a desired outcome e.g. arresting someone, imprisoning them, etc.). By your Oxford Dictionary definition of 'republic', there is no country in this world, with a few possible exceptions like Switzerland (though even this example is dubious), where 'supreme power' (that is the means rather than the right) lies with 'the people and their elected representatives'. Even if you mean by 'supreme power' what would be better described as 'authority' (that is the right rather than the means), then that is still dubious: are 'the people' in the US sovereign (that is the ultimate authority)? Despite what the US Constitution says, this is difficult to see. The main point is this that the definition of a republic does not depend upon where power lies (for power is spread all over the place - even in very authoritarian regimes such as Iran - and is therefore a useless indicator) but whether the state has a sovereign other than a monarch. The republic may be a democracy, an oligarchy, an autocracy, etc. but it is not a monarchy. Monarchies are states in which a monarch is sovereign and may be constitutional monarchies (that is power - not authority - is significantly limited in some way and likely distributed i.e. exercised on behalf of, rather than by, the monarch) or they may be absolute (significant power is exercised by the monarch without uniform limitation i.e. it is arbitrary power (NB: that does not mean tyrannical)). They can also be similar to autocracies where the autocrat is not the monarch but is someone else like the monarch's prime minister e.g. the Kingdom of Italy under Mussolini). Where power actually lies is rather irrelevant to whether or not a country is a republic. Indeed, by your definition, few, if any, are republics. Gonefishing (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Idealistic description of democracy in the intro ignores the un-ideal realities of it in practice, especially in ancient Greece

The intro includes a statement that says that "freedom of speech" and "freedom of political expression" is essential to democracy. That is an idealistic exaggeration, for liberal democracy this is indeed an attempted ideal, but not for democracy as a whole. I need only mention the notorious example of political censorship in the Athenian democracy of ancient Greece that sentenced the philosopher Socrates to death on the ridiculous charge that he was "corrupting the youth" due to the opponents of Socrates and his teachings, essentially mobilizing enough of a mob to press Socrates to be executed. Furthermore Athenian democracy only served the wealthy upper class, and only wealthy people were elected - and unrestrained bribery of voters by candidates was the norm. This is an example of democracy having the potential to be repressive and in the service of effective mob rule - and this has been addressed by Aristotle and especially by Alexis de Toqueville and John Stuart Mill who both spoke of the danger of a tyranny of the majority repressing a minority through unrestrained "pure" democracy. In fact liberal democracy is in reality a restrained democracy based on the criticisms of "pure" democracy by people like de Toqueville - that is one of the reasons why there are codes of civil rights in liberal democracies that are intentionally designed to be difficult to change, so that civil rights of individuals can be protected from the possibility of a majority using democracy to persecute people.--R-41 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The current intro lead says that democracy is necessarily "egalitarian". That is not accurate. The working class in Britain were citizens who were not permitted to vote until the 1860s. Women were not permitted to vote in most Western societies until the 1920s - and French women gained the right to vote in 1944. There was indeed democracy for in apartheid South Africa for whites to vote in white-only elections in a majority black-populated country. Also it claims that democracy takes place in a "nation", there is democracy outside of nations - the E.U. has a transnational democracy, and there is economic democracy.--R-41 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to the intro previously having unsourced claims, I decided to replace that material in it with sourced material.--R-41 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A few notes on what you said above for future reference:

• There was no or little "political censorship" in ancient Athens. Socrates was found guilty for introducing/altering the religion of the Athens and thus corrupting the youth. It might sound as a technicality but based (along with Socrates for a prepared trial defense) on that his opponents won the argument. Moreover the court did not sentence him to death... the courts in Athens after listening to the sentence the accused believed to be proper (Socrates recommended a pension) the court delivers two verdicts. For socrates was exile or death. Socrates chose death. Far different than today or how you described. In fact the institutions of Athens demanded nearly complete political freedom in matters of state (as well private) to the point that today we would consider it as radical! Imagine that in the assembly even a person with no personal wealth or even a house to stay or social status could offer advice and affect the state's decision making!
• Freedom (including freedom of speech) and are necessary and defining components of democracy (see Aristotle and Pericles). Liberal democracy is not democracy strictly speaking; It is a subset of democracy that of representation and other elements from oligarchy and monarchy are fused with democratic (usually to a small degree). This limited version of democracy only so long through the rule of law effectively in a coarse-grained fashion equality and freedom.
• Toqueville and Mill were aristocrats... what do you expect from them to say about democracy? Especially when they were brainwashed by Plato. They want you to believe that the pure democracy is ochlocracy and quickly ignore the crimes that aristocrats have committed before the many rebel against them, notable example French revolution, 30 tyrants (one of which was Plato's uncle) in Athens etc. But attempting to dispel their sophistries you find that democracy is more justice and rule of law rather than ochlocracy or a majority tyrant. There is a lot of bibliography on re-understanding democracy but the following is a good start: "Mass and Elite" Josiah Ober.
• US, France, and UK are not pure democracies, a more correct term is: elective oligarchies. So try to avoid using examples to redefine democracy to their image. A.Cython (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Much of what your are saying is opinions especially your views that "liberal democracy is not democracy strictly speaking" - because - as you say - it has oligarchy in it, along with your claim that the US, France, and the UK not being democracies. Liberal democracy is widely regarded as a form of democracy. Your statement "They want you to believe that the pure democracy is ochlocracy and quickly ignore the crimes that aristocrats have committed before the many rebel against them" is a very strong POV reflecting your negative views about liberal democracy and its aristocratic founders, and will likely affect your perception of sources that say that liberal democracy is a form of democracy. I accept your criticism on the point about Socrates though. Democracies range in type, and not all have been advocates of universal freedom for all people. Furthermore, this should not simply be about what an "ideal" democracy should be, but what democracy actually has been, and a thorough description of major forms of democracy.--R-41 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Liberal democracy or in fact any form of democratic representation is always heavily questioned in political science as to whether is truly democratic. That is not news, it is a on going debate in political science. Google it if you want, but if you want some academic bibliography then let me know. The argument of those advocate an indirect rule goes as follows "to safeguard democratic principles we need to suppress democracy". Does it sound contradictory? Of course it does unless one recognise that modern representative democracies are mixed. Just think of Madison's words when he was writing one of the federalist papers "[direct] democracy is the most vile form of government". So is the USA a democracy or a republic? Hints: Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution also see info box at Usa, UK, and France. And part of the problem is that most of political thought even today is mostly around ideas by Aristotle and his teacher Plato. Sure there are different forms of democracies but while reducing democratic features to safeguard democratic principles there has to a limit at which it becomes no more democratic. And so let us not confuse republics with democracies as well as representative democracies with democracies. That's all I am saying.A.Cython (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your claims here about liberal democracy are very unconventional. An RfC would need to be opened to discuss whether your interpretation of "liberal democracy" not being "truely democratic" is valid or not.--R-41 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you take it too personal.

• Irrespective of what liberal democracy is there is no need for us stretch this in the introduction. What I tried to do at the intro was to simplify without a bias to one form of democracy or another.
• Besides in the main article there is quite a lot information about representative (including liberal) democracies. I am not sure what you are going to prove with a RfC... what you want to put on trial is my opinion but not my edits? Look at the edits and tell me where specifically there is a problem. The WP has specific introduction style see WP:LEAD so it would prohibit an introduction that favours one form of democracy over the other.
• You say it is "unconventional", to describe representative democracies as not democratic... Well I guess you did not use Google scholar or books to find out... Start with these ones in case to find out the opinion of Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the issue:

• Read page 1
• Read page 155-6A.Cython (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Natural Democracy and Constitutional Democracy

In India, terms like Natural Democracy and Constitutional Democracy are used to show difference in forms of two different types of republics. Present movement in India for formation of a Lokpal position to supervise on peoples' representatives is based on recognizing these two types of republics. To define Natural Democracy, this is a form of democracy that exists by natural rights of people irrespective of existence of any government. Whereas constitutional democracy come in existence by human creation by constituting a written or otherwise code of rules to guide the people and government is established to execute those rules. Natural democracy exists all the time either active or dormant but constitutional democracy comes in existence by only by human efforts. Constitutional Democracy often curbs the freedom of people to suit its convenience and so we see there is always some conflict between them. Many revolutions are examples in point to show this conflict. Other differences are, Natural democracy has no limits (of freedoms), no responsibility and no answerability whereas Constitutional democracy has all these limits. This difference creates many complicated situations. Conflicts are on issues such as answerability to whom? Responsibility for whom?

Success of Natural democracy rests in the consciousness of people, if people are not mature enough (maturity in knowing the limits of freedoms) to execute their rights as per Natural Democracy it can create many problems and for this reason wise people from the society came with the alternative of Constitutional Democracy but even that could be in trouble if people's representatives are not responsible enough. We see Direct Democracy in practice in small number in some places but that is not Natural democracy as that constitutes a part of government. Natural Democracy gives no government but only monitors on the existing government by representatives. It is a controlling factor and not executing factor. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Cutout record

Hi all, I made several significant cuts in the article and would like to paste them here for record.

Section	Cutout	Reason for cutting out
Definition	According to some theories of democracy, popular sovereignty is the founding principle of such a system. However, the democratic principle has also been expressed as "the freedom to call something into being which did not exist before, which was not given… and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known." This type of freedom, which is connected to human "natality," or the capacity to begin anew, sees democracy as "not only a political system… [but] an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human."	wp:nor, in paricular google scholar lists only three cites to the 2009 papar from which the second quote originates.
History	Band societies, such as the Bushmen, which usually number 20-50 people in the band often do not have leaders and make decisions based on consensus among the majority. In Melanesia, farming village communities have traditionally been egalitarian and lacking in a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy. Although a "Big man" or "Big woman" could gain influence, that influence was conditional on a continued demonstration of leadership skills, and on the willingness of the community. Every person was expected to share in communal duties, and entitled to participate in communal decisions. However, strong social pressure encouraged conformity and discouraged individualism.	Placed out of context, and I couldn't find an appropriate place to put it.
History	Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy. Elizabeth Tooker, a Temple University professor of anthropology and an authority on the culture and history of the Northern Iroquois, has reviewed the claims that the Iroquois inspired the American Confederation and concluded they are myth rather than fact. The relationship between the Iroquois League and the Constitution is based on a portion of a letter written by Benjamin Franklin and a speech by the Iroquois chief Canasatego in 1744. Tooker concluded that the documents only indicate that some groups of Iroquois and white settlers realized the advantages of uniting against a common enemy, and that ultimately there is little evidence to support the idea that 18th century colonists were knowledgeable regarding the Iroquois system of governance. What little evidence there is regarding this system indicates chiefs of different tribes were permitted representation in the Iroquois League council, and this ability to represent the tribe was hereditary. The council itself did not practice representative government, and there were no elections; deceased chiefs' successors were selected by the most senior woman within the hereditary lineage, in consultation with other women in the clan. Decision making occurred through lengthy discussion and decisions were unanimous, with topics discussed being introduced by a single tribe. Tooker concludes that "...there is virtually no evidence that the framers [of the Constitution] borrowed from the Iroquois" and that the myth that this was the case is the result of exaggerations and misunderstandings of a claim made by Iroquois linguist and ethnographer J.N.B. Hewitt after his death in 1937.	Debunks a theory without even presenting it. A presentation only to debunk would be warranted if the theory was very notable, but I didn't even hear of it.
History	New Zealand granted suffrage to (native) Māori men in 1867, white men in 1879, and to women in 1893, thus becoming the first major nation to achieve universal suffrage. The Freedom in the World index lists New Zealand as the only free country in the world in 1893. The Australian Colonies became democratic during the mid-19th century, and South Australia introduced women's suffrage in 1894. (It was argued that as women would vote the same as their husbands, this essentially gave married men two votes, which was not unreasonable.)	Notable for history of democracy but not for democracy
History	Political ratings of countries according to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World survey, 2011:   Free   Partly free   Not free	The map based on the economist index covers the same information with more detail
Forms	A semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. This form of democracy is even less common than a presidential system. This system has both a prime minister with no fixed term and a president with a fixed term. Depending on the country, the separation of powers between the prime minister and president varies. In one instance, the president can hold more power than the prime minister, with the prime minister accountable to both the legislature and president. On the other hand, the prime minister can hold more power than the president. The president and prime minister share power, while the president holds powers separate from those of the legislature. The president holds the role of commander in chief, controls foreign policy, and is head of state ("the face of the people"). The prime minister is expected to formulate the Presidents policies into legislature. The prime minister is the head of government and as such he is expected to formulate the policies of the party that won the election into legislature. This type of government can also create issues over who holds what responsibilities.	It includes only vauge generalizations, which border on being simply wrong, even if sourced. The useful facts have been retained, but attached to the previous section.
Forms	Consumers exercise power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the market-place. The wealthier consumers, whose position in society was acquired through previous rounds of consumer election and is either maintained or lost in successive rounds, can cast more votes than the relatively poor. The ability to cast these greater numbers of votes can be lost through dissipation of fortune resulting from such causes as malinvestment or excessive consumption.	Out of context passage suspect of embedding a Austrian economics POV. A mention of this view was still retained.

Yaniv256 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work. Though I must say that the history section needs to cut down a little bit... what do you think?A.Cython (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Really, even more? Please feel free to join in on the fun. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the history section needs a big re-edit not so much to cut the content but say the same things in a narrative way rather than in almost incoherent list of events. I would have joined the fun if I had some time, which I have not found... Actually my priority is to expand/re-write the history of democracy sections after the antiquity.A.Cython (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)