DEMOCRACY SECOND PERIOD GRADES 9 A AND 9 B

A Short Definition of

Democracy

U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy as:

«Government of the people, by the people, for the people»

Democracy is by far the most challenging form of government - both for politicians and for the people. The term democracy comes from the Greek language and means "rule by the (simple) people". The so-called "democracies" in classical antiquity (Athens and Rome) represent precursors of modern democracies. Like modern democracy, they were created as a reaction to a concentration and abuse of power by the rulers. Yet the theory of modern democracy was not formulated until the Age of Enlightment (17^th/18^th centuries), when philosophers defined the essential elements of democracy: separation of powers, basic civil rights / human rights, religious liberty and separation of church and state.

Democracy - Classical Definition

Often democracy is defined opposite to other types of government:

Monarchy	Government by a single ruler (king/queen, emperor)
Aristocracy	Government by noblemen (hereditary)
Oligarchy	Government by few persons
Theocracy	"Government by God" (in reality this means government by religious leaders)
Dictatorship	Government by people, that have seized power by force (often: military dictatorship)

Today, the majority of democratic countries in the world are republics, i.e. officials are elected. Some well-established democratic countries in Europe, however, (the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and the Scandinavian countries) are constitutional monarchies, i.e. a king or queen is head of state while the constitution guarantees nevertheless all basic rights as in any democratic republic and sets clear limits to duties and competences of the monarch. Such a king can be regarded as a stabilizing factor rather than as a danger for a democracy. Therefore the classical definition of democracy is little helpful - at least concerning monarchy.

Democracy - Modern Definition

Because the definition of the term democracy opposite to monarchy and aristocracy rather creates confusion with regard to constitutional monarchies instead of establishing clarity, it is more appropriate to define democracy opposite to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes:

Democracy	Form of government, where a constitution guarantees basic personal and political rights, fair and free elections, and independent courts of law.
Totalitarian regime	Government by a little group of leaders on the basis of an ideology, that claims general validity for all aspects of life and usually attempts to replace religion. The regime does not tolerate any deviation from its state ideology. Regime opponents are persecuted, tortured, detained in concentration camps and members of ethnic minorities are killed in mass executions (genocide). Historic examples of totalitarian regimes include: National Socialism (Germany under Hitler, 1933-1945) and Stalinism.
Authoritarian regime	Government by a little group of leaders. In contrast to totalitarian regimes, authoritarian regimes have no distinct state ideology and grant some amount of freedom (e.g. economic and cultural) as long as their rule is not jeopardized. The most important goal of authoritarian regimes is the maintenance of power and the personal enrichment on cost of the country and its population.
Theocracy	"Government by God": in reality this means government by religious leaders. Usually a certain interpretation of ancient religious laws replaces modern forms of law and is enforced with utmost severity. Example: Islamic Republic of Iran.

Democracy - Key Elements

In order to deserve the label modern democracy, a country needs to fulfill some basic requirements - and they need not only be written down in it's constitution but must be kept up in everyday life by politicians and authorities:

• Guarantee of basic Human Rights to every individual person vis-à-vis the state and its authorities as well as vis-à-vis any social groups (especially religious institutions) and vis-à-vis other persons.
• Separation of Powers between the institutions of the state:
  Government [Executive Power],
  Parliament [Legislative Power] und 
  Courts of Law [Judicative Power]
• Freedom of opinion, speech, press and massmedia
• Religious liberty
• General and equal right to vote (one person, one vote)
• Good Governance (focus on public interest and absence of corruption)

Churchill on democracy

«No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time»

This famous quote attributed to the former British prime minister Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) focuses right on the weak spot of democracy:
There is no such thing as the "perfect form of government" on earth, but any other form of government produces even less desirable results than democracy. Until today, no other form of government has been invented that could regulate public affairs better than democracy.

Democracy Building

Public Affairs

What Tasks Should a State fulfill?

Some years ago, a well-established political party in Switzerland coined the slogan:

"More freedom, less state!"

Would you assert honestly that you have never been in a situation where you felt restricted by law and did not understand why you were not expected to do this or that? Did you ever love to pay taxes? So we're likely to spontaneously agree to this slogan! But as good as it sounds, it might well be dangerous to our liberty. Why this?

There are only very few things in life that do affect only one single person and these are normally not regulated by laws. When it comes to laws there is always some reason behind it - protecting the legitimate interests and liberty of some other person. I may not expect that my liberty is granted unless I do respect the liberty of others..

Living together in a civilized society is only possible if there are clear rules (even more than one might think) and if everybody does respect them. But if some people think they are strong enough to disregard the rules, those being treated unfair might eventually turn into an angry mob. This principle holds true for small groups as well as for whole nations. Civilization and democracy are all about defining a set of rules that are acceptable to everybody.

From this we can already derive the most important thing the state has to take care of:

The state must ensure that all human beings living on its territory may live in dignity and liberty and that the wealthy do not only talk of their responsibility for the weak but also act correspondingly.

If the state (parliament, government, administration, judges) makes a good job, not only the weak will profit, but also the mighty: there will be political stability and stable, well established rules will allow entrepreneurs to plan huge investments without taking high (political) risks. Otherwise they will not only risk losses due to riots or revolutions, they will also refrain from profitable investments just because of the risks.

If you think this is too simple, take a look at how successful managers of the world's largest companies do decide and you will find that political stability is indeed a key factor. It is not the mechanism that makes the difficulty, but rather the process of building democracy, the negocitating the details of such a social contract - depending on the economic situation of a country as well as on its culture. And last, but not least, both wealthy and poor must be convinced that this contract works and develop trust in it. This may take a very long time: Switzerland for example needed some 150 years from 1798 (Swiss Revolution) to 1948 (introduction of social security insurance for the aged and handicapped) until the basics were defined.

A Definition of Public Affairs

According to Switzerland's Constitution

It might be worthwile to go into some detail and have a look into how Switzerland's constitution defines public affairs. The basic principles of Switzerland's constitution have remained unchanged since it was created in 1848, but it has been amended organically since to take into account new developments in society. In 1999 the structure and language have been modernized radically while the substance remained unchanged. So we may find there an example of a social contract that is at the same time proven by 150 years of experience and very up-to-date.

1. The state protects the freedom and the rights of the people and preserves the independence and security of the country.
2. The state advances common welfare, sustainable development, internal solidarity and cultural variety of the country.
3. The state provides for equal opportunities between citizens as far as possible.
4. The state promotes the durable preservation of the natural bases of life and a peaceful and just international order.

Each person takes responsibility for himself/herself and contributes according to his/her capabilities to the accomplishment of the tasks in state and society.

(translation of: Switzerland's constitution, articles 2 and 6

Social Aims of a Modern Democratic State

1. The state supports in addition to personal responsibility and private initiative, that:
1. each person participates in social security;
2. each person receives the care necessary for his/her health;
3. families as communities of adults and children are protected and encouraged;
4. persons fit for work can earn their living through work under appropriate conditions;
5. each person will find an appropriate dwelling for himself/herself and his/her family at affordable conditions;
6. children, adulescents as well as adults get education and may develop their capabilities;
7. children and adulescents are aided in their development to become independent and socially responsible persons and that they are supported in their social, cultural and political integration.
2. The state ensures that each person is protected against the economic consequences of age, invalidity, illness, accidents, unemployment, motherhood, orphanage and widowhood.

(translation of: Switzerland's constitution, article 41

Different Systems of Democracy

Democracy is not a sharply defined form of government that would need to be implemented in just one and no other way. Both in theory and in practice there are as many systems of democracy than democratic countries. Nevertheless there are some general features as well as some groups of democratic systems that may be distinguished from each other.

Contrary to other authors, I will not try to present pure and ideal theories but rather start from the other side: how can the different systems of democracy be distinguished in everyday political life.

The Common Features of Democracy

Before we look at the differences it might be useful to recall the basic principles common to all forms of democracy, however.

• Separation of Powers:
• Legislative Power: parliament
  normally in two chambers
• Executive Power: government and administration
• Judicative Power: courts of justice
• Constitution
• Laws debated and passed by the parliament
• Decrees by the government
  based on laws and regulating the details how to the laws shall be applied in practice
• Elections
• Political Parties
• Referendums
  Though there are massive differences on how frequent referendums are and on which level they apply (constitution or single laws), the concept as such is known in any practical form of democracy.

Three Basic Types of Democracy

Any form of democracy tries in its own way to ascertain the will of the people and to bring public affairs into line with it. Theoretically this can be achieved by direct participation of all citizens (Direct Democracy) or by a body of elected representatives (Representative Democracy). Within the group of Representative Democracies the focus may be on a strong president (Presidental Democracy) or on a strong parliament (Parliamentary Democracy). As already mentioned, the question is not whether there exist some forms of direct participation or of representation but rather on how much importance they are given in a certain system.

Direct Democracy	Presidential Democracy	Parliamentary Democracy
Example: Switzerland	Examples: USA, France	Examples: UK, Germany, Spain, Italy
Head of State Any member of government in turn (for one year), no practical importance	The President is head of state and leader of the government	Head of State is a different function than prime minister, it may be a monarch (queen/king) or an elected person
Government: members with equal rights, elected by the parliament, representing all major parties (not really unanimous, but extremely stable)	President elected by the people nominates the ministers [members of government]	Government elected by the parliament based on a majority, may be dismissed by the parliament (especially when based on a coalition of several parties)
Parliament elected for a fixed legislative period, no dissolution; changing coalitions, sometimes even extreme right and extreme left together against the center (though for different reasons)	Parliament elected for a fixed legislative period clear institutional separation of parliament and government (but the officials may cooperate as closely as in the other systems, if they like to do so)	Parliament elected for a legislative period, dissolution and early new elections possible if a clear majority cannot be established
Government members need not be members of parliament	Government members need not be members of parliament	Government members must be elected members of parliament
Strong position of the people (frequent referendums on single laws)	Strong position of the president (veto)	Strong position of the political parties
Laws are created in four steps: 1. Draft by the administration 2. Consultation of federal states, political parties, entrepreneurs, unions and other interested groups 3. Parliamentary debate and final version passed 4. Possibility of a referendum If a strong party or lobby threatens to call for a referendum, the parliament might be inclined to a compromise, the formal consultation process gives the public a clear view of the critical aspects and the pros and cons already at an early stage	Laws are debated and passed by the parliament; lobbyists do not have a formal right to be heared, but do exercise some influence on members of parliament in reality; the president may block a law by veto; as the president is elected as a personality (not only as a party leader) by the people (not by the parliament), he may or may not rely on a majority of the parliament (in practice there have been some periods with a president forced to cooperate with a majority of oppositional members of parliament)	Laws are proposed by the government (being the leaders of the coalition of parties) laws are debated and passed by parliament; lobbyists do not have a formal right to be heared, but do exercise some influence on members of parliament in reality; if there is a solid majority, compromises are sought within the coalition (and may sometimes represent tactics rather than vonviction), the opposition may be ignored until the next elections but then laws may be revoked or changed by a new majority
The process of making laws is rather slow, which may be a hadicap with more technically oriented laws (regulating questions of broad public interest but addressing a small number of professionals). Laws concerning everybody's everyday's actions, however, may get more attention and acceptance by the public and therefore be more effective due to the intense public debate.	A strong president may act immediately - but there is a certain risk that he rushes to conclusions he may hardly be willing to withdraw from even if they prove to be unwise from a later point of view.	If there are many small parties in a country, the close dependance of the government on a parliamentary majority may undermine the stability of the government.
History shows that from time to time the Swiss people does correct decisions of parliament and goverment that give in too much to lobby pressure, so Direct Democracy seems to offer effective checks and balances. But sometimes it just takes a long time (decades, not years) until a new idea is finally broadly accepted.	The separation of powers - though it might seem very clear in theory - does not automatically provide more effective checks and balances between parliament and government than in a Parliamentary Democracy.	If there are only two relevant parties and one has a comfortable majority, the parliamentary system offers few effectivechecks and balances.

Conclusion

Though there are remarkable formal and institutional differencies between the systems of Direct, Presidential andParliamentary Democracy, there are more or less successful examples for any of these systems.

Therefore the practical results - measurable by different factors such as national wealth (both mean income and distribution of wealth), accessability and standards of education, life expectancy, infant mortality, corruption and so on - tend to depend less on the choice of one system or another but rather on what might be called an "established culture of democracy", consisting of both know-how (experience how the system once chosen works in practice) and trust that it works and it pays - for the society as a whole as well as for the individuals.