Talk:Democracy/Archive 7

Tyranny of the majority (moving content to another article)

I'd like to propose that some of the content from "Tyranny of the majority" be moved into the majoritarianism article, especially the examples. I just feel that this section is just getting too long. IMHO, democracy should be an introduction to the concept and link to a lot of sub-articles rather than being very extensive (and long) itself. Any thoughts? --Stevietheman 03:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree - go for it. Although Majoritarianism doesn't currently use the term "tyranny of the majority" so some adjusting needed I guess. The same could perhaps be done for the "Elections as rituals" section and elections - or else the links between the articles strengthened.--Cjnm 11:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it is important to convey negative aspects of democracy in this article, so that people can see it is just a lesser evil and not a panacea. Majoritarianism doesn't serve the purpose, because most people have never heard of it and often pluralities have the same negative characteristics.--Silverback 19:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Points taken. You're right that many elections are decided with pluralities. Thus, we probably need to rework this section or write new content to address this.

Also, this made me think that we might want content that addresses the other negative of what happens in a society when the majority will isn't regularly adhered to. In other words, talk about the political problems that democracy best solves.

As an aside, I don't think "most people have never heard of it" should play into our article writing decisions. There are many encyclopedic articles that wouldn't get written if this were a consideration. --Stevietheman 19:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "most people have never heard of it" should not be used to block obscure or technical subjects. Although, most english speakers probably have never heard of majoritarianism, english is such in its techniques of constructing new words that most could hazard a good guess about what it means upon hearing it. On a subject such as democracy, that most people have heard of, they find this page probably not because they don't know what it is, but wonder if there are considerations or nuances to the issue they haven't considered, there should be at least a concise summary here and some thought provoking examples that will allow them to assess whether the information on a page they are being referred to will be interesting to them or not. IMO, with the examples we have have assembled, most will have been stimulated to consider minorities they might not have otherwise thought of as minorities, that while they may not be sympathic to some of them, they might realize that they themselves might be in some minority without realizing it that could be threatened in the future, and the limitations and mechanisms of democracy deserve their careful consideration.--Silverback 14:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thank you for your thoughts. --Stevietheman 20:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a section on the problem of tyranny of the majority should be kept in the article on democracy, even if there is a separate article on ToM. How long will this page be locked, and who will decide that it is ready to be unlocked, the majority? 8^) --172.193.184.192 16:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Just want to add my vote to the last comment by anonymous user. It chimes with keeping a surfeit of knowledge rather than .. Sleevies 22:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Democratic decisions from pluralities

Does anyone have any ideas about how we can address the situations where democratic decisions are not always made with majorities? --Stevietheman 20:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the old times democracy was a form of government where decisions were taken by the people (including minority) while here someone decided to define democracy as government of majority, that for me is a correct definition of dictatorship. During Italian Fascism and German Nazism the majority was together with the government, like in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and in the USA of GW Bush. Maybe English speaking people are no more able to understand the meaning of democracy, or too many people had the head washed by the propaganda on TV and media. Horrible to say, but this is what I see.--Truman Burbank 12:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Negatives from lack of democracy

It would be good to include content that addresses the negative of what happens in a society when the majority will isn't regularly adhered to. In other words, talk about the political problems that democracy best solves. I think this would be a good balance to the "Tyranny of the majority" content. Any ideas? --Stevietheman 20:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be superfluous: the criticisms of other political theories would already state the negatives from lack of democracy. There is no sense in repeating yourself.

And thanks for teaching me the code as to how I can 'sign' my name... --jsw663 03.47, 03 May 2005

At a minimum, "tyranny of the majority" should be balanced with something akin to the "tyranny of the minority". Since tyranny of the minority (or of the one) is far more common in history than a tyranny of the majority (if indeed that's ever really occurred), balance would make sense here. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:55, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

The minority is compensated for in the constitution of the USA. That is why we have a Senate, as per the Great Compromise, the majority is represented in the house, each state only is allowed to senators and a President to concur. And then their is the Electoral College, the minority one and elected George W. Bush the first time.

Democracy doesn't end on Election Day

It would be also good to include content covering the idea that in a constitutional framework, democracy is more of an ongoing process rather than just what takes place on Election Day. Modern democracy includes the right to participate in the formulation of regulations, to petition the government for grievances, to mount campaigns to convince Congresscritters (and their equivalents everywhere) of specific positions, to take group economic actions which demonstrate the power of said group so their positions are taken seriously, etc. --Stevietheman 15:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Socrates blurb / Modern democracy

First of all, this article has been about "modern democracy"/"liberal democracy" for a long time. If we wish to change the article title to "Democracy (modern)", that's one approach for further clarification, but on the other hand, it's not unusual for there to be a lead article in the Wikipedia for a term that has multiple meanings. It probably is obvious that "modern democracy" is far and away the leading approach to describing the term "democracy" at this time.

That said, the Socrates blurb relates to Athenian democracy, not modern democracy, which this article is about. Beyond this, there are already a good number of "tyranny of the majority" examples so that having the Socrates blurb or any others doesn't really add any additional useful info anyway. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote for What?

The older greek and roman (under the senate not the emperor so don't bite my head off) democracies were more in the sense of having to vote for a policy rather than a person. In modern democracies this is simply not the case. Is a democracy therefore voting for a leader, or is it "tyranny of the masses" as so eloquently put in the article?

The term Democracy is simply rule by the people, through laws or elected representatives. A Republic is a form of democracy in which leaders are elected based on the will of the people and serves as a check on the tyranny of the masses. --Mr Anthem 07:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV

An anon keeps inserting a large amount of poorly formed POV. Please everyone help us keep this out of the article unless and until this person goes over the material in the talk here. We can't have stuff like this sit in the article for hours before reversion. At best, this material needs a lot of discussion and cleanup before inclusion. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 00:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new here so, I'm adding on to this.

Ad far as I'm aware there is no proof at all that the Greeks thought that election was a democratic method of selection. Greeks like Herodotus refer to allotment as democratic because random selection valued all the citizens equally.

Around 90% of the Athenian magistrates were chosen by election, and only a few exceptional positions like generals and the board of waterworks were elected. This strongly implies that they saw allotment as the preferred method of selection and election was at best a less preferrable method.

Neither the main assembly nor the juries were elected.

The basis of democracy is that ordinary people have power. The idea of electing people is a major difference between Greek and modern democracy and indeed I strongly believe ancient Greeks would not accept that we live in democracies unless ordinary people literally sat in government because they were citizens.

The article needs to clearly distinquish between "democracy" as a Greek form of government by the people which overwhelmingly meant personal representation & allotment and modern "democracy" which is arguably not a democracy but a meritocracy!

Historical development of modern democracy

Just realized the big chunk that's missing from this article. It's almost hard to believe the historical development of modern democracy hasn't been covered yet, at least, in this article or an article of its own. Anyone care to take a stab at this sometime? It might be fun.  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 03:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cons of democracy

Actually, I was curious about one thing: besides Hitler's pre-Nazi Germany example, which other examples in history can show that democracy has failed?

It is all very well to talk about the benefits of democracy in the democracy page, but to be balanced, we need a lengthier 'cons of democracy' section, illustrated with more examples.

This is not intended to be an anti-democracy point, but rather, if an entire section can be devoted to democracy being "the loyal opposition", then the least one can expect is an opposing view to the opposition, so to speak.

PS I also note that in other political theories, there are lengthy, detailed sections on its criticisms - why can't there be an effective one for democracy as well?

-- jsw663 03.44, 03 May 2005

Agreed but with a caveat: There's still many positives about democracy that have been left out as well. We need a full exploration of both the pros and cons. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree, but it seems as if the cons section is seriously underdeveloped, whereas I personally, with my limited knowledge, cannot think of many more pros of democracy! -- jsw663 03.50, 03 May 2005

Democracy? What democracy? Representatives are mostly liars, traitors and criminals carefully selected by parties and Ivy League secret societies to give only a handful of choices to the people. And then, whatever the choice of the people, representatives stab everyone in the back with a vast metaphoric dagger. The primary election process for the President of the United States of America is the most complicated in the world, with complicated party and government rules at each of the local, state and federal levels, modified at each election for the victory of a particular candidate, in stark naked contrast to the simple systems used in the rest of the USA dominated world. The world's a labor aristocracy. The "independent observers" that stand for the entire world's opinion of whether any one election is "free and fair" are probably just Americans pasted onto world opinion, anyway. The constitution is whatever someone that passed the Bar, the President and Congress likes, says that it is. If it's not a direct democracy, it's just the reigning criminal organization, especially the way that states historically act. And democracy is nothing but a gigantic lie. Santa Claus is nothing more or less than the spirit of Christmas. See lie to children.

The USA isn't even a Westphailian state anyway. The state isn't organized, the state isn't a community, its politics is just an ideological cover for a battle of elites and commoners on each side trying to rob each other, there are no territorial limits to its world domination or hegemonic influence, and its sovereignty is used in a self defeating way. The War on Drugs and the semanticomoronic "Terror" are both completely self defeating: some deterrence, no reform, no escape, no alternative, no possibility of diplomacy.FET 00:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If we are refering mosly to the american style of democracy, we can see that it doesn't allways work. Whenever some point has multiple sides with the same amount of support then nothing happens. Also when the electorial college gets involved sometimes the more popular side with the people doesn't even win (take the american election between Geroge W. Bush and Al Gore; Gore was more popular but Bush won). Now don't go saying that I am a traitor to democracy, it usually works but I am providing a point to help keep the neutrality of this article. Andrew D White 05:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

What? Sorry, I'm missing something here. This is not about how democracy follows the views of the People and not my own. This is my view about how it is not a democracy and about how it is not a Westphailian state. We really need to talk about the same thing. One side should not talk about Intravenous Therapy while the other talks about Astronomy. This is a basic conversational principle here. Your comment sounds to me like it came from outer space. FET 04:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

On Power Personified.

There is a delicious portrait of the very inner workings of power:

It is of Russian President Vladimir Putin and champion Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler Alexander Karelin.

Karelin towers over Putin in a protective posture while Putin shows a hovering glee.

The "pinnicle" of society "needs" the more "base" elements for its existence.

Find it at: [1]

--Scroll1 02:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Different Shape on Every Issue?

"Another argument is that majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually be careful to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately become part of a minority on a future democratic decision."

Could I see a cite to some notable theorist who makes this point? Whoever it is, I'm sure he/she words it better than this. Majorities do sometimes maintain their coherence over a wide range of issues for a long time, the statement that they take a "different shape on EVERY issue" is just wrong. Indeed, the way we switch to more cautious language like "usually" after the semi-colon makes me even more suspicious than I would otherwise be of the "EVERY" before it. --Christofurio 21:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I see no issue with this statement, except that the wording could be improved. It seems to be making a logical statement about what happens in democracy. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

There are certainly some minorities that stand out as distinctive and that remain outside the ruling coalition long enough to be persecuted. Consider the (white) farmers in Zimbabwe who were driven out of the country a couple of years ago. Consider ethnic Chinese in certain east Asian countries, or the Jews in France at the time of Dreyfus' trial. In each of these cases, the mere possibility that "they could eventually do the same to us if they become part of a ruling coalition" did little or nothing to allay persecution, because the minority was/is distinctive, was/is relatively prosperous, was/is the object of majority envy. I'm am glad that the word has just been changed a bit, but I still would like yto see a citation to some notable theorist who has actually made this point. --Christofurio 23:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's keep it in the article while a source is searched for. I'm very sure this is something that has been said quite often. As for your examples, that's fair... but the statement we're referring to is talking about a tendency for tolerance of the minority... it isn't an absolute. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It obviously doesn't hold in every case. It it still a good point as it it applies in many cases. Many people have different views on taxes, gun rights, foreign policy, abortion, and so on. Sometimes they are in a majority, sometimes in a minority. And people may change their view. Ethnic minorities are a special case since one cannot change this and one is easily marked as belonging to this particular minority. Ultramarine 01:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

When you guys speak of minorities and majorities, do you mean ethnic/social (i.e. gypsies, homosexuals, clowns) or political (i.e. administration vs opposition)? Wouter Lievens 09:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Political, as in each individual political issue having a different majority/minority associated with it. But you do raise a significant distinction re: ethnic/social that should help us clarify the content in question, although it could also be argued that ethnic/social minorities are often not monolithic in their support of or opposition to various issues. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln said something very like this; I have no problem with fiddling with the quantification. Septentrionalis 23:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have another problem in this passage. "A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide."

Since these two sentences are in the same paragraph I gather that the second of them is supposed to illuminate or expnd on the first. But it doesn't seem to do so. The first of those sentences seems to be making a purely logical (analytical, if you will) point. The second seems to be making a different, empirical, point. --Christofurio 21:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Les Marshall

Could somebody please find a source/reference for the Les Marshall material? Thanks. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

This has bugged me, too, since most of the references one gets from googling that name appear to be mirrors from this article. Its possible that the Les Marshall involved is a Labour Party leader in the UK. http://www.mansfieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=722&ArticleID=670352 -- or. maybe, that's not him at all. --Christofurio 01:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

is this passage ok?

Also, democracies are often slow to react when in war situations. This is because of the bearocracy a motion needs to pass through to be passed in both houses of Congress. As opposed to the monarchies of old, which could immediately mobilize, in a democracy a declaration of war must be passed in Congress (the president can command a surprise attack, but it must be cleared within 60 days by the Congress). If a draft is instituted, people can protest it. In spite of these things, or perhaps because of them, democracies are able to retain their postion of power without being overrun by enemies.

not hall democracies have houses called "Congress" and the law of 60 days can be referred only to US.. is it?

It is neither English nor true (consider, for example, how long the French took to decide to get involved in the American Revolution). Other than that, and its deep unawareness of the world outside the United States, I see no problems with it. -- Septentrionalis

Actually, even as it now revised, it could use an actual example of democratic slowness. The United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. Septentrionalis

I already revised this passage before I noticed you asking here. Is my revision ok?  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Elections as Rituals

This section is full of POV.

"Elections have often been used by authoritarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy."

Is this just a problem in countries which we like to perceive as authoritarian or dictatorial, or are these just weasel words used to justify certain countries' foreign policy? Can we not think of such things happening closer to home?

"restrictions on who is allowed to stand for election"

This happens in the UK. You aren't allowed to stand if you're under 21 (despite the age of majority being 18), in gaol, a lunatic (this has a lot of room for abuse - actually, it doesn't happen much, but it theoretically could), a Peer of the Realm, or if you've been convicted of vote-rigging within the last five years.

"restrictions on the true amount of power that elected representatives are allowed to hold, or the policies that they are permitted to choose while in office"

Again, this happens in Britain. Local government is only allowed to do what central government explicitly says it may do; anything else is "ultra vires". Much of the influence behind central government's policies in Britain is exerted by unelected officials, who have the great advantage of being permanent, and therefore know how to work the system far better than the (extremely indirectly) elected ministers.

"voting which is not truly free and fair (e.g., through intimidation of those voting for particular candidates)"

Like the UK Labour Party's Birmingham-wide scheme of electoral fraud for which three of their councillors got convicted in an extremely readable High Court Judgement earlier this year.

"or most simply through falsification of the results"

And then they found boxes of uncounted votes hidden in a store-room in Birmingham Council House.

So does this mean the UK is a dictatorship or has an authoritarian regime? Of course not. I would therefore suggest that this section gets re-written into a more general limitations of democracy section.

Phlogistomania 15:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Original Greek

It might be good to provide a transliteration of the original greek in the etymology of the word. This helps people to whom the letters appear gibberish with pronouncing the words.—Kbolino 23:40, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine and the meaning of NPOV

Tell me, Ultramarine, which part of Wikipedia's NPOV policy do you have trouble understanding? You may present the arguments of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute as much as you like, but, given the extremely controversial nature of their work, claiming that they "prove" anything - and removing opposing arguments, is nothing but crude insertion of POV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

They do not claim, they present a statistical study. This is science, not discussion arguments. Provide your own peer-reviewed studies or keep quiet. Ultramarine 23:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not have a multi-million dollar propaganda machine at my disposal. But that is irrelevant. You present your studies, I present my counter-examples, and everyone goes home happy. What are your objections? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, present peer-reviewed studies, not your original research. Furthermore, Sweden and Canda are very capitalist nations. But a few isolated nations do not present evidence for a statistcal tendency, which you do not seem to understand. And the study shows causation. Ultramarine 00:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I never claimed to present evidence for a statistcal tendency. Merely counter-examples. They exist, so they should be mentioned. And I don't care what the study shows - this is wikipedia, not CATO-pedia. Would you like me to dig up various studies from the Soviet Union on similar issues, and affirm that they prove this and that? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My points, in case you haven't noticed, are the following:

• Counter-examples should be mentioned.
• No conclusion either for or against your proposition should be drawn. This is the essence of NPOV. But I shouldn't be suprised that you don't understand it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Explained statistcal tendency and that are exceptions to such a tendency. However, present another peer-reviewed study if you want to argue against the conclusions. NPOV does not mean that non-scientific arguments should be presented as equal to scientific ones. Ultramarine 00:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

True enough; but it also does not mean that one side's ostensibly scientific studies should be held as the absolute truth that is to be endorsed without question. And I still wonder what you would think of peer review if all available reviewers were from the Soviet Union. In any case, I'm trying to work towards a compromise on the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia policy. If you want to argue against a peer-reviewed study, present your own. And again, Sweden and Canada are very capitalist countries with very high scores on economic freedom. Ultramarine 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was Wikipedia policy to gag anyone and censor any arguments not backed up by a peer-reviewed study. By that logic, some articles shouldn't even exist. Oh, and by the way, the Heritage Foundation does not have a monopoly on the definition of "capitalism". Many - such as myself - do not regard their Index of Economic Freedom as an accurate measure of a country's "capitalist-ness". Therefore, refrain from making such statements as "a country with a high Index is very capitalist". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not argue that all arguments in Wikipedia should be backed by peer-review. But arguments against such peer-reviewed studies should not be given equal weight unless they are backed by other studies. This is standard practice in science. And I mentioned that it is capitalism measured with Index of economic freedom. Ultramarine 00:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you refuse to give any weight to arguments against your studies. Now, do we have an agreement that exceptions should be mentioned, together with the fact that such exceptions are not excluded by a statistical trend? Do we also have agreement that the fact that correlation is not causation should also be mentioned? (in case you haven't noticed, I mentioned it is relation to democracy and famine, not your studies) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Statistical tendency is explained now. You correct about correlation regarding famines. Ultramarine 00:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In your rush to edit, you muddled my presentation of two different theories (1. Prosperity causes democracy; 2. Capitalism causes prosperity). That needs to be sorted out... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please try to work with me for a compromise here. Blatantly POV sentences are unacceptable and will be reverted. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Clearly all attempts to reason with you have failed. Very well, we'll have to call in a neutral moderator. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Do that. I will resist your attempts to remove the results of peer-reviewed studies you do not like. Ultramarine 01:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not wish to remove anything; last time I checked, it was you who refused to allow counter-arguments, and insisted that your studies should be officially endorsed by wikipedia. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have added numerous of your arguments to the article. I only resists your attempts to remove the results of peer-reviewed studies that you do not like. Ultramarine 01:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Very well, let's try this one last time before I call it a day... And let's set a basic ground rule for the future: Every time one of us reverts, he makes a list of objections on the talk page. Do we have an agreement? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have justified my edits here and on the edit summaries and will continue to do so in the future. I have included your relevant arguments but will not accept deletion of the results of peer-reviewed studies just because you do not like the results. Added another reference. Ultramarine 01:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please quote the exact arguments that I have deleted. Also, stop confusing my examples of India and Brunei (which refer to democracy-prosperity) with those of Sweden/Canada vs. Chile/Estonia (which refer to capitalism-prosperity and therefore your studies) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Deletion "However, such a causation has been established in some studies of the Index of Economic Freedom and democracy, as noted above." Established in peer-reviewed studies, they do not claim but state.
• Misunderstanding of statistics " This has been criticized by giving examples such as India (which is democratic but arguably not prosperous) or Brunei (which has a high GDP but has never been democratic)." That is not arguments against a statistical tendency.
• False argument "There are obvious exceptions - for example, many wealthy democracies, such as Sweden or Canada, are far less capitalist and practice far more state regulations on the market than poorer nations such as Chile or Estonia" Sweden and Canada score very high on economic freedom which the studies use. Thus, this can not be used as critique of the studies methodology. Ultramarine 01:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least now we have something to work with. I'll number them:

1. Redundant sentence; it does not belong at the end of the section and I moved the mention of causality higher up, in the relevant position. Also, NPOV means that verbs such as "claims", "argues" etc. are preferable.
2. They're not supposed to be arguments against a statistical tendency, they're supposed to be counter-examples.
3. Sweden and Canada score high, but lower than Chile and Estonia. That was my argument, and it is entirely correct.

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Science does not claim. Please provide studies supporting your position instead of deleting scientific results.
• 2. A counter-example is very different from an exception to a statistcal tendency. A counter-example shows that something is false, which these exceptions do not.
• 3. Sweden and Canda are not "far" less capitalist according to the methodology of the studies. They support the theory since they are capitalist and prosperous. Ultramarine 02:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Your studies are not science. Any attempt to present them as such is pure POV.
2. Very well then, replace the name 'counter-example' with 'exception' in my edits.
3. Very well then, remove the word 'far'. And the theory is not that "capitalist countries are prosperous". The theory is that more capitalist countries are more prosperous than less capitalist ones. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• 1. They are science, published in peer-reviewed journals, often by researchers independent of think-thanks.
• 2. You can not criticze a statistical tendency with exceptions unless you use statistics. And you do not.
• 3. No, the theory is regarding whether more capitalist countries have more economic growth and if this causes democracy. Ultramarine 12:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you are removing the summary of modernization theory's perspective on democratization, on of the most influential schools of thought on the subject, and I suggest that you do not continue. [2] If you are unfamiliar with this literature, read Lipset, Rustow, and Prezworksi and stop reverting. 172 | Talk 02:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please give peer-reviewed studies supporting your claims. And I have not removed anything supported in statistcal studies. Ultramarine 03:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Go to Jstor and do a search for Lipset, Rustow, and Prezworksi, along with "modernization theory" and you will find scores of peer review journals. Stop removing content on an important area of research because you are unfamiliar with the literature. 172 | Talk 14:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Several of the mentioned authors are included in my references. If you want to cite other authors or studies, it is you who should do the job, not I. I suggest reading this [3], the third section, page 18-20. Ultramarine 14:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you even know what you're arguing? You're saying that there should be no summary of modernization theory's perspective on democratization (that wealth causes democracy, not the other way around) because the authors appear in the references. Otherwise you would not be removing the content restored here You're saying that the article is sufficiently balanced so long as we include some authors in references, despite never citing them or mentioning their work. I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you get away with censoring everything that does not emanate from right-wing think-tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. 172 | Talk 14:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It is you who should include claimed studies supporting your ideas, not I. Again, my references mentions several of your authors. And the index of economic freedom have been used in hundreds of studies by researchers not affiliated with think thanks. Ultramarine 15:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. There are claimed studies on modernization theory than you can imagine. The criterion for including information in this article is not whether or not it corresponds with your ideological right-wing worldview. 172 | Talk 15:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, you should include studies that you claim support your theory. And your ignoring the massive amount of studies that support my position. Ultramarine 15:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest reading this [4], the third section, page 18-20. Ultramarine 04:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Go to Jstor and do a search for Lipset, Rustow, and Prezworksi along with modernization theory yourself. You are not going to get away with removing any reference to modernization theory with an argument from ignorance. 172 | Talk 15:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of these authors are mentioned in my references. And it is you who should add studies that you claim support your position. And you are ignoring the many studies that support my position. Ultramarine 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you (and the people whose views you support) disagree with an argument is not ground for removing that argument, Ultramarine. I have offered various compromises [5] [6], all of which were rejected. As such, I can only treat you as a POV warrior and wait for more third party comments or even arbitration. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to think that you have the right to distort peer-reviewed studies just because you do not like the results. Please read the above link that give numerous additional studies regarding economic and politic freedom. I have included several of you arguments but will not allow you to remove or misrepresent results you do not like. Ultramarine 12:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is being distorted. And you have not included any of my arguments - you keep confusing the India/Brunei example with the Sweden and Canada vs. Chile and Estonia. Also, again I ask you, would you be so quick to defend parallel studies done in the Soviet Union? Social sciences are not hard science, and never have been. Here's what we're going to do: I've offered numerous compromises and you rejected all of them. Now it's your turn to offer compromises and my turn to reject the ones I deem inappropriate. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have answered above. I will mention Sweden and Canada since you do not seem to understand what the Index study or have found. Ultramarine 13:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

On a related note, have you noticed that our dispute has resulted in a rather lengthy discussion of economic freedom in an article that is supposed to be about democracy? Perhaps we should move the whole thing elsewhere, such as to the Index of Economic Freedom article (and leave a link here pointing to it). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Alright, hopefully we've each had time to think this through, and cool heads will prevail. When you really look at it, our dispute is focused on a relatively tiny part of the article, and it's a little off-topic as well (see my comment above). The points I am trying to make are the following:

1. Controversial findings by groups that are well known to be biased (such as CATO) should not be presented as established fact. If CATO made a study that says X, the article shouldn't state "X is true". It should state "CATO has made a study that allegedly proves X is true". This is a general principle, and applies to any controversial information.
2. Arguments from all sides should be presented. None of them should be endorsed, and none of them should be dismissed. The fact that you believe an argument to be flawed is not grounds for removing it. After all, if it IS flawed, then our readers will notice, so there's nothing for you to worry about. Remember, our goal here is to report various opinions and points of view. This is social science, not hard science.

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, most of the researchers and studies are independent of any right-wing think thank and are peer-reviewed. Do not one more time ignore that I have stated this. If you want to argue against the results of peer-review, cite your own studies. And do not remove the references to the studies. Ultramarine 05:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no rule in wikipedia that says one can only argue against peer-reviewed studies with other peer-reviewed studies. Further, peer-review is not part of the scientific method and says nothing of the scientific value of the study. A thousand years ago, a study claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth could have passed peer-review with flying colours. Your insistence on pushing your POV has got us into this mess in the first place. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed studies are today considered the golden standard in science. Your removal of the supporting studies, your false statements about who the researchers are, your removal of some of the results, and your mistatements about exceptions are attempts to hide scientific results that do not fit with Marxist theory. Ultramarine 07:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, they are not scientific just because they are peer reviewed. They do not follow the scientific method. Statistics may reinforce a certain view, but they do not prove anything in and of themselves. Read Robert A West's critique of your obsession with peer review. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You guys seem to argue about a lot of stupid things. First of all it is permissable to present so called POV material as long as it is from an established and from well-known source (e.g. UN, WorldBank, CIA, Cato Institute, Brookings institute, ACLU etc). It can be left-wing or right-wing just as long as it is authorative and it is not stated as a fact but rather stated as something along the lines of "A study at the Cato institute provides evidence for the idea of blah". The Cato institute is in IMHO an authoritative source even though it right-wing just in the same way that many consider Brookings left-wing and yet its authoritative. The are many sources which are extremely right wing and yet are authoritative like for instance economists from the Chicago School of Economics. Just as there are many sources that are left-wing and authoratitive like for instance Karl Marx, Frankfort School etc. Remember you can't prove anything in science. Only math has proofs. Secondly get rid of original research regardless of whether it is correct or true. If an argument is being made it should not be made by you. It should be made by someone else and you should be citing that person. For instance it is bad to argue along the lines of "Russia is better that Brazil therefore communism is better than capitalism". However it is appropriate to state that "Noam Chomsky says Russia is better than Brazil so he claims this shows that communism is better than capitalism". You should never ever give your own counter examples. Instead cite the counterexamples of an authoritative or important person in the debate. Also I think that it is perfectly valid to give evidence from non-peer reviewed sources and arguments to go against peer-reviewed evidence. The wikipedia is after all an encyclopedia and its general goal is to be authoritative not scientifically correct. For instance ID theory is not scientifically valid and would never be included in a scientific journal. However it has to be included in wikipedia because it is considered to be an important and influential argument against evolution regardless of its correctness. It is important to note that arguments for or against something do not have to be neutral, logic, correct or even intelligable to be included in wikipedia articles. They just have to be important and influential in the debate regardless of their point of view. They should also not be presented as fact but rather as claims originating from a particular sources.

Ultramarine and 3RR

Just like on Communist state, Ultramarine is able to assert ownership over yet another article through his willingness to violate the 3RR. 172 | Talk 15:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have decided to copy his strategy and revert at nauseaum. If it attracts the attention of an admin, good. Arbitration is precisely what we need here. If both myself and Ultramarine are banned from editing the article, good. Since he's the only one pushing a POV, and since all I am trying to do is restore neutrality, I am certain someone else will pick up my NPOV-ing work once Ultramarine is no longer allowed to vandalize the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The Marxists have stopped even trying to explain their deletions of the results of peer-reviewed studies. Ultramarine 16:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I will revert until either you understand the need for neutrality, or we both get banned. Those "studies" of yours are pure propaganda and you know it. There's nothing wrong with propaganda, as long as wikipedia doesn't endorse it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea, don't break the 3RR, just report it on the admin noticeboard each time he does it. He is giving himself himself enough rope to hang himself, so copying his strategy might be a bad idea in the long-run. I've seen way too many good users leave because of trolls. 172 | Talk 16:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Very well, I will stop reverting. But I sincerely hope an admin comes by soon. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It might take a while, but it will happen since I've been notifying individual admins. Eventually we'll have 48 hours of relief to clean up his mess. 172 | Talk 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracy on this page

It is a poltical urban legend - spread often by conservatives - that the "founding fathers" used Democracy to refer solely to direct Democracy. This is not true, there are numerous citable examples of the concept of Democracy meaning a Republic where the people are the soveriegn body. For example, during the debates over the Bill of Rights. Among all of the other things that need to be changed, this gross inaccuracy - how ever often repeated - needs to be corrected. Stirling Newberry 06:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Urban legend? That's exactly how they used the term, and diffentiated it from republicanism. For example, Madison in Fed Paper 10: "The greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter" And, "Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it." ...That whole paper is about protecting individuals FROM democracy. In a democracy the majority IS the law, wherease in a republic the majority is limited BY the law. RJII 00:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The legend is that direct democracy was the only meaning of "democracy". False; consider " the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of kings", from Jefferson's letters. This is associated with the other half-truth: that all the Founders regarded direct democracy as an inevitable evil, or necessarily lawless. Stating a half-truth unqualified is worse than a lie. Septentrionalis 13:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying some of the founding fathers would use the word "democracy" when they were actually referring to a republic. Ok ..just semantics. But, wait, Jefferson qualified it as "representative" democracy ..that's a republic. RJII 15:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC) I just looked at the article and that's what it says: "There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the American "Founding Fathers." According to this usage, the word 'democracy' refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a 'republic.'" So, no problem. RJII 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The question is, whether this issue belongs on this page at all. Other countries also have divisions about what democracy is, but this one is specific to the USA. A separate article on democracy in America is not a bad idea.Ruzmanci 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC) ........

I have replaced the first section of the democracy page with more readable and complete information about democracy in general terms.

Somebody will, of course, delete it, but I hope more people realize that my explanation is better and more up-to-date than the unreadable block of text that was the first section on the page earlier.

Roger J. ...............

Judicial Legislation under common law

Most of you laymen (under legal context) won't recognise that the appellate level courts are doing much work as legislators when it comes to the law of tort. Perhaps someone learned in the civil law could give a stab at the breach of the separation of powers.

I'd like to add "democratic control"

Hi, I think it might be useful to write something about "democratic control" which is the earth of any real democracy. I would like to add the following text, but since I'm new to wiki (and my English is not very good), I'd like to have from you any remarks about it. Thank you very much from Italy, Lele Talk 13:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

==Democratic control==

All democratic constitutions explicitly state or imply that the power belongs to the people. They also state that the people delegate their power to some representatives which temporarily rule the country in behalf of the people. People's temporary representatives are choosen by means of elections. Democratic Control is the control that the people exercise over their representatives to verify how they get and use the power. Without democratic control democracy may easily degenerate into oligarchy or dictatorship. A very important role in democratic control is played by media, thus real independence of media from political end economic powers is widely thought to be crucial for any democracy.

There are two issues here. Popular sovereignty is the usual name for rule by 'the people'. I added it to the section, and changed the sub-heading. What 'the people' do between elections, does not make a country more or less democratic, in the usual sense. Voter apathy is not a disqualifier for democracy. Media and access to information are covered in the Liberal Democracy section.Ruzmanci 18:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

<<<

Dear Ruzmanci, I hope to have discovered why you have completely cancelled the term "democratic control". In my mother tongue, italian, "controllare" means "to monitor", while in english to control has a more active meaning than simply watching what happens. Thus I should have written "democratic monitoring" instead of "democratic control".

So do you think is the following acceptable?

==democratic monitoring==

All democratic constitutions explicitly state or imply that the power belongs to the people (popular sovereignty). They also state that the people delegate their power to some representatives which temporarily rule the country in behalf of the people. People's temporary representatives are choosen by means of elections. Democratic monitoring is the monitoring that the people exercise over their representatives to check how they get and use the power. Without democratic monitoring democracy may easily degenerate into oligarchy or dictatorship. For democratic monitoring to be possible, institutions must have open and understandable decision-making processes (transparency) and must permit access to documents (openness). Secrecy and hidden decision-making undermine democracy. A very important role in democratic monitoring is played by media, thus a real independence of media from politics is widely thought to be vital for any democracy.

The few sentences before the definition of democratic monitoring are written to stress why the people has the right to monitor what's going on in any public institution. We can find a way to merge your new section "Popular sovereignty" with my text above. I refer to Media as a way to make public the decisions and the acts of the ruling government which otherwise would be not noticed by common people and thus couldn't be monitored by them. Lele 08:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) (talk)

Monitoring is not a good term either, it is normally used to describe monitoring of elections. There are four separate issues in your addition, that is the problem, they should be split for clarity...

• popular sovereignty
• the distinction between direct and representative democracy, which is already noted in the intro, and also in the section on American use of the term 'Republic'
• freedom of the press, and access to information. These are now considered qualities of a liberal democracy, and they belong in the section on Liberal Democracy.
• citizen participation in decision-making between elections. This is not considered to be a defining characteristic of democracy, so you can not say that otherwise a country is an oligarchy. You may not agree with it, but the usual definition of liberal democracy implies that free and fair elections, every four years, make a country democratic - even if voters do nothing in between elections.Ruzmanci 10:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent radical rewrite

I'm starting this section for the author of the recent radical rewrite to explain all the changes to the article. My objection is that the changes wiped out a lot of the work of a large community of authors, without explaining the changes here first. My request is simple: Just explain why you're making the changes you're making in each area. And if the consensus is that they're good, they will sail through, no harm, no foul. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is no 'community of authors' which owns this article, all users can contribute, and no prior approval is required for Wikipedia edits. The logic behind each change to existing text was given is the history. and in fact very little was removed, most was just moved. Some sections were added, and no reason has been given to simply delete them. There is no requirement to post every addition on the talk page for prior approval.

The older version of the article was too Americo-centric, and was not comprehensive, it did not even include a description of what a democractic system in fact is. It also needed a clean-up, since things had been added piecemeal. Items specifically related to liberal democracy belong in that section Ruzmanci 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be Americo-centric. Is that some kind of incredible sin. After all America is one of the world's oldest democracies and is considered the quentissential example of democracy by most people in the world - both those who hate democracy and love it. Many of the democratic ideas around the world were heavily copied from America. I would expect an article on Communist or Totalitarianism to focus on Stalin, Lenin and Mao. This just makes sense. The same as it makes sense for an article on Democracy to focus on America. America is one of the biggest promoters of Democracy and for most people is the basic symbol of democracy. This is also true in history. After all Tocqueville who was French wrote "Democracy in America" precisely because he considered America to be the most democratic nation at the time.

It also very strange for people to be criticizing the Amero-centric nature of the ENGLISH wikipedia. After all this is an English wikipedia. Most of its readers are probably American since America has one of the largest English-speaking populations with Internet Access. Also Australians, British and Canadians are well acquainted with American ideas.

Description of democracy

'Essential elements of a democracy' was added, since much of this was not covered in the article. The discussion page is not the place to post the content of the article, but since that has been requested (see above) here are the elements of democracy, as added to the article:

• there is a demos, a group which takes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the nation, and citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.

• there is a territory where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic in themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.

• there is a decision-making procedure, which is either direct (for instance a referendum) or indirect (for instance election of a representative government). There are other procedures, including surviving citizens assemblies.

• the procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state (government and courts) which go against personal choices or interests. It is especially relevant for democracies, since elections have both winners and losers.

• the procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.

• the demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next - without secession of the minority.

• in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result. In Europe, eurosceptic nationalists argue that the European Union does exactly that, and the EU has created a parallel democratic structure in the European Parliament. That means that EU member states do, to a certain extent, have two forms of government, and the status of a 'democratic Europe' is contentious and unresolved.

== "is not a democracy== huh?

Frankly I don't see the value of a section on the expression "blankety blank is not a democracy" especially given the random collection of examples which seem to make no noticeable point as here. --Christofurio 00:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

If democracy as a value is discussed, then it could be pointed out that some organisations - like the Catholic Church - find it inappropriate. But this stub section is indeed a pointless addition.Ruzmanci 18:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. If anyone feels it is desparately needed, they can always paste it back.Ruzmanci 12:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Moyen and Posner

This comment needs explanation its significance for democracy in general...

Bill Moyen argues that "democracy can't exist without an informed public" in his preface to "The Future of Media". Commenting on this, Richard Posner states, "If this is true, the United States is not a democracy (which may be Moyers's dyspeptic view). Only members of the intelligentsia, a tiny slice of the population, deliberate on public issues." [7]

Who is Bill Moyen? Who is Richard Posner? How are non-American readers supposed to have the background knowledge to place them in context?Ruzmanci 11:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

War for democracy

The section on advantages and disadvantages, by definition, contains some disadvantages of democracy. It is therefore not right to purge it of anything which might show democracy in a negative light. Recent edits on the 'democratic peace theory' wrongly defined it as relating to liberal democracies - some studies do, but others don't. The reference to R.J. Rummel was deleted without reason, and his definitional criteria in one study were falsely attributed to the theory as a whole. Democratic peace theory does indeed include research results showing that democracies prefer to go to war with non-democracies. If you think democracy should be spread by war - as many people do - then this is a good thing. Others disagree, and the research itself is also disputed. However it is not in dispute that this result is indeed cited in publications on the democratic peace theory, and that it is openly discussed as an explanation for the observed correlations, usually under the factor 'alliances'. So there is no valid reason to remove this point, nor the historically and factually accurate information that some people favour wars for democracy, and favour regime change on the grounds of 'dictatorship'. There is also no reason to delete reference to relevant research papers. Ruzmanci 10:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Cite you claims with studies. All the statements from the text in my version are taken from the text in full DPT article that has an extensive references to studies [8]. Ultramarine 11:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The cited example of the war preference - 44% of all wars caused by democracies going to war against non-democracies - is Rummel's own study, which you removed.Ruzmanci 12:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The result you cite from Rummel's study is not democracies attacking nondemocracies. It is all wars between these two, including when nondemocracies attack the democracies [9].

"Democracies do sometimes attack nondemocracies. Several papers show that democracies are overall slightly less involved in war, initiate wars and militarised disputes less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions [10]. A recent theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking other democracies, "militant" democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships. Most militarized disputes by democracies since 1950 have involved only four nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and India [11][12]."

Nothing there indicates that democracies in general want to spread democracy by war.

You cannot criticize the DPT by criticising Rummel's other research. Many other researchers using different methods have found similar results.

Your opinion seems to your own original research. Please present a source that supports it.

You cannot cite some new wars after the Cold War as evidence. That is anecdotal evidence. Compare to the statistical evidence cited in DPT article. Ultramarine 13:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, are you really claiming that the existence of these wars is "an unrealiable claim based on personal evidence"? Septentrionalis 15:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that these events prove anything about the whole period after the Cold War is something "that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven." I have presented statistics, you isolated cases. Ultramarine 15:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is wrong to present bad-faith misquotes of another editors comments, for the purposes of discrediting their edits. Rummels work plainly includes cases where democracies went to war with non-democracies. I made no judgement on who attacked who, and that is irrelevant for the issue here.

Democratic Peace Theory shows that when democracies fight, they preferentially fight non-democracies. It could hardly show anything else. Until recently this was taken as evidence of the peacefulness of democracies, and the DPT was seen as a pro-western and pro-democracy theory. However, that attitude is subject to erosion, due to increasing scepticism about forced democratisation. In early 2003 Iraq was a non-democracy and Canada was a democracy. The United States went to war with Iraq, and US aircraft bombed Falluja instead of Toronto. Whether that is good or bad is a personal opinion, and no doubt they are generally sceptical in Falluja itself. The facts - that there was a war - speak for themselves.

Insofar as DPT concerns itself with the facts, then it does indeed show democracies preferentially at war with non-democracies. That is structurally consistent with a universal-ethical ideology, and must count as a structural disadvantage of democracy, unless you admire war, as indeed some European conservative theorists did. And if you suppport regime-change wars, for the democratisation of non-democracies, then it is an advantage of democracy that it fights such wars. Many people think so, and the section should include that view. (One of those people is George W. Bush, so it is not a marginal position).

The version deleted by Ultramarine covered this point, and placed the DPT in its context as a disadvantage of democracy, which is what this section is for. It correctly cited and linked to R. J. Rummel, and explained why his work is so disputed. That dispute is itself a fact, in fact Rummel has been accused of scientific fraud for his outrageously selective manipulation of the data. The fact that even with this degree of manipulation, the results still indicate that non-democracies risk military action by democracies, is good evidence for an expansive-ideological interpretation of democracy. That is the 'militant orientation' issue, which was also referenced, and also deleted without explanation by Ultramarine.Ruzmanci 18:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, The result you cite from Rummel's study is not democracies attacking nondemocracies. It is all wars between these two, including when nondemocracies attack the democracies [13].

To make this absolutely clear "If one defines an international war as any military engagements in which 1,000 or more were killed, then 353 pairs of nations (e.g., Germany vs. USSR) engaged in such wars, 1816-1991. None were between two democracies, 155 pairs involved a democracy and a nondemocracy, and 198 involved two nondemocracies fighting each other." [14]. Ultramarine 21:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course democracies do attack nondemcracies when they start war, but this is not proof that they want to spread democracy. Ultramarine 21:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, you cannot criticize the DPT by criticising Rummel's other research. Many other researchers using different methods have found similar results.

The fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons [15].

Your theory seems to original research. Present a source that supports it. Ultramarine 20:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine: if you cared to actually read the papers linked from Democratic Peace Theory, you'd see that there hasn't been any statistically significant support for the DPT for the pre-Cold War times.

In fact [16] states that before WW1, democracies were MORE likely to fight each other.

Rummel states clearly that there were few democracies before WW2 (even with his weird definition of voting rights for 2/3 of adult males), so it's not any original research.

Statistical significance depends on amount of included data, so analysis that includes at least part of the cold war can't be considered statistically significant for the pre-cold war era. Taw 19:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

False. See for example this [17] or this [18].

Regarding your paper, here is a later paper by one of the authors who support the DPT. Although he argues that the intermediate regimes have the most militarized disputes, it is the democracies that have the least [19] Ultramarine 20:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ruzmanci, you seem to argue that democracies go to war in order to liberate dictatorships. This has indeed happened a few times, but this is not proof that that this is the usual explanation. Examples include numerous imperialistic and colonial wars against dictatorships. It may be one explanation for some recent wars, but it is very POV to devote the whole section in democracy article to it and not mention the numreous beneficial effects on violence from democracy. Ultramarine 21:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the text may include you theory, although I would prefer a source, but the text should also mention the numerous documented beneficial effects from democracy on violence. Do you feel this is fair? Ultramarine 21:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What is a beneficial effect of democracy on violence? US voters elected George W. Bush and he fought a war to introduce a democracy in Iraq. Some people in Iraq thought that was a good idea, and accordingly a 'benefical effect on violence' - i.e. US internal democracy resulted in a war elsewhere. The section makes this point. There is no neutral definition of 'beneficial' in this context. For more on the context of democratic peace theory, see the new intro there - if it has been deleted it is at the talk page there. Wars of democratic liberation are not a recent phenomenon, see Second World War.Ruzmanci 12:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I have included your theory in the text. Please repsect NPOV and do not delete the documented beneficial effects of democracy. If you dispute them, you should publish this outside Wikipedia. Ultramarine 12:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: Cite sources. Give sources for your claims and theories. Ultramarine 13:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite democratic peace theory

I rewote this section, so that it now starts with the political use of DPT as a pro-democracy argument. It now distinguishes between the dyadic and monadic versions of DPT and their differing attitude to democracy. I scrapped the Cold War reference, since it is an example of the 'bloc peace' explanation within DPT, it is not a criticism of DPT as some people think, and it is therefore irrelevant to include counter-examples here, they belong in the bloc peace section at the main DPT article.Ruzmanci 18:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Democracy, the most imperious regime

I think that democracy as it is represented in our days, is the most imperious regime since it imposes to everybody the uncontrolled urges of the mob (ochlos in Greek). It is impossible to discuss with the mob, you can only affect them, in case you are a charismatic public speaker, which ofcourse means that you are willing to use arguments of low quality, the only ones that the vast majority of the citizens can understand.( arguments like i will abolish taxes, i will find you jobs, etc) A dictator (with the Latin meaning of the word), presupposing he is not a scurrilous personality has some kind of knowledge for his country's intellectual capable individuals and can surrely use them. But the mob ignores them and doesn't accept to be governed by people that can think. To be able to think is something that the mob dislikes. What really makes a difference to them is the ability to speak well to them, to be able to adulate them, in general, to be a good liar. Democracy keeps stubbornly in margin the virtues, unless they are hidden under the vulgar qualifications that the mob admires.(we don't elect the most capable, but the one that comes from a family that has a tradition in politics, the one that is a former film star, etc) Democracy depends on the will of the majority...What majority? In tne mob, majorities are formed according to certain similarities of the individuals that compose it. And the most common, the most fundamental similaties are animosity and envy. Consequently, democracy is the regime in which a mojority of malignants and asinines elects governors that represent these, let's say virtues(sic)

democracy vs. liberal democracy

Editors here need to be careful to note whether they're speaking of liberal democracy or democracy in general. It's making a confusing article. It looks like a lot of assertions in the article are actually meant to be assertions about liberal democracy. This article should be a broad article on various kinds of democracy, including liberal democracy. If talking about liberal-democracy, please specify it as such. RJII 20:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What democracies are non-liberal democracies?

For more information, [20]

Poverty and democracy

I rewrote the section on poverty and democracy, which was unabashed propaganda, and Americo-centric. It is not the function of this article to provide a platform for glorifying the American way of life, and the American form of government, or to serve as a link farm for right wing think-thanks.

Here is the revised version:

There is overwhelming statistical evidence for the presence of poverty in democracies, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty. In addition, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that the democratic states have failed to relieve massive and acute poverty in non-democratic states, despite their (democracies) generally higher GDP per capita. Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Logically, a democracy inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money. However, many supporters of democracy see this as an advantage of democracy. If, for instance, democracies are rich and autocracies are poor, that is (in their eyes) proof of the superiority of democracy, rather than proof that democracies are selfish. Supporters of democracy often quote the prominent economist, Amartya Sen, who notes that no functioning democracy has ever allowed a large scale famine to affect its citizens. The fate of citizens of other states is not considered relevant for this argument.

Similarly, internal inequalities are often discounted in assessing the standard of living in democracies. In some democratic states, a high national score on the human development index (HDI) is accompanied by differentials in health, education, and income among ethnic groups. In the United States, in every state, infant mortality is higher for African-Americans then for whites.[21]. In a survey[22] of infant mortality trends, G. K. Singh and S. M. Yu conclude:

The long-term downward trend in US infant mortality has not benefited Blacks and Whites equally. The Black/White disparity in infant mortality has not only persisted but increased over time and is not expected to diminish in the near future. Educational inequalities have also widened, and racial disparities have generally increased across all educational levels.

Supporters of democracy emphasise the high average scores of democracies, although the strong inequalities in the United States depress its average scores on health and social indicators, compared to other developed democracies. Again, it is logically consistent with majority rule, that the majority can allocate itself better access to social infrastructure such as education and health care. Whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage of democracy is a value preference.

The politicised dispute on democracy and poverty is further complicated by the historical parallel development of liberal democracy and historic capitalism, during and after the industrial revolution. (The term capitalism is no longer generally used in Europe, except to refer to the 19th century). It is therefore difficult to distinguish cause and effect. Some American pro-capitalism groups support the theory that more capitalism increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratisation. In such theories, democracy will not bring prosperity, but results from it. Political supporters of democracy tend to argue that it is itself causal. The issue has been further complicated by the economic success of China and other non-democratic states in Asia. In a 2005 Foreign Affairs article[23], Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs conclude:

Until quite recently, conventional wisdom has held that economic development, wherever it occurs, will lead inevitably - and fairly quickly - to democracy... The fact that almost all of the richest countries in the world are democratic was long taken as iron-clad evidence of this progression. Recent history, however, has complicated matters. As events now suggest, the link between economic development and what is generally called liberal democracy is actually quite weak and may even be getting weaker... the growing number of affluent authoritarian states suggests that greater wealth alone does not automatically lead to greater political freedom.

Ruzmanci 11:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement and suggested rewrite of this section

I find that this section of the article is POV, and makes statement it purports as facts when this is not always justified with a reference. Overall I believe that the author has assumed that "democracy" refers to the US system and socio-economic model. I cite what I dispute below along with suggestions,

1) article "There is overwhelming statistical evidence for the presence of poverty in democracies, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty."

Problems: a) This overwhelming statistical evidence is not cited. (b) It suggests, indirectly but still in a significant manner, that the largest relative poverty gaps are in democratic states, which I do not believe, factually, is the case. If I am mistaken then I would appreciate a source being cited here.

Suggested rewrite: "Statistical evidence, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty (link to this) shows that democracies still experience poverty in their own states."

2) article "In addition, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that the democratic states have failed to relieve massive and acute poverty in non-democratic states, despite their (the democracies') generally higher GDP per capita."

Problems "non-democratic states" - I assume here the author is referring to issues of aid, particuarly in Africa. Most African states are democracies, ableit often unstable. Furthermore, despite being a make poverty history campaigner myself, I would question whether it is plausable to judge a system by how it affects the economics of non-democratic states. Lastly, once again statical evidence is cited but not referenced

Suggested rewrite: "Futhermore despite the richest nations in the world being democracies, global problems of massive and acute povety persist"

3) article "Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Logically, a democracy inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money. However, many supporters of democracy see this as an advantage of democracy. If, for instance, democracies are rich and autocracies are poor, that is (in their eyes) proof of the superiority of democracy, rather than proof that democracies are selfish"

Problems Logically, a democracy inhibits redistribution of majority wealth. This logic leaves no room for charity or compassion. For example, owing partly to widespread public support for Make Poverty History, the UK government lead a campaign for more aid, cancelling of debt and fairer trade with povery-stricken nations at this year's G8 summit. The first two aims were largely sucessful. Sadly, however the author's logical assesment appears to have some merit as the current international trade system is horrendous in my interpretaion. But that's my POV. I would suggest a rewrite should extol this logical conclusion in a manner which gives scope to alturism.

There are also selfish reasons for international development as countries try to establish markets and trading partners, I cite the Marshall Plan as an example of this and alturism in almost equal measure.

Once again I must persist in my statement that most poverty stricken nations are democracies. The argument in the last sentance is flawed in that regard and appears to give an conclusion that democracies are selfish. This is POV in the extreme

Suggested rewrite "Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Without a degree of alturism within the voting population the democratic system inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money."

4) article "Supporters of democracy often quote the prominent economist, Amartya Sen, who notes that no functioning democracy has ever allowed a large scale famine to affect its citizens; this is a dubious representation of his actual argument. The fate of citizens of other states is not considered relevant for this argument."

Problem The use of the word "dubious" is inherently POV. "Questionable" or "Debatable" would be preferable. However I believe this entire argument is a Straw man and so:

Suggested rewrite (remove these two sentances)

OK, its 3am here and I need sleep. I've run through one paragraph and I'll probably tackle the rest tomorrow. Overall, here is my rewrite of the first paragraph in full:

"Statistical evidence, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty (link to this) shows that democracies still experience poverty in their own states. Futhermore despite the richest nations in the world being democracies, global problems of massive and acute povety persist. Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Without a degree of alturism within the voting population the democratic system inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money."

Apologies for mistakes in grammar and spelling, I've probably overused UK spellings terribly. I would apppreciate the communitie's comments on this first paragraph so I know what track to take, if any, with the next few paragraphs.

LukeSurl 02:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Liberal democracy

Liberal democracy is not a clearly defined, fixed, entity, it is a vague term which means different thing to different people. What is more, many of them are propgandsitic in nature, especially the claim to provide 'freedom'. In reality, political freedom is sharply limited in some respects, and for some groups. Those qualifications were deleted, and I have now restored them. Once again, it is not the function of this article to provide a platform for glorifying the American way of life, and the American form of government.Ruzmanci 11:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You make numerous original claims. Again, give sources. Ultramarine 17:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the article pays to much attention to liberalism. After all, the article is about democracy and not about liberalism. I know that some people in the U.S. often name the terms 'freedom' and 'democracy' in the same breath. However, I think a democracy presupposes both freedom and equality. From that point of view, the content of the article is rather unbalanced.

S.H.

Bad-faith deletions

User Ultramarine has on several occasions deleted sources which I had given, and then insisted I provide sources. It is not possible to 'assume good faith' under these circumstances, since Ultramarine is assigning blame to a third party for something he himself has done. Ultramarine has now repeated this pattern, by deleting many disdavantages of democracy with a blanket revert, and describing this in the history page as "unreferenced opinions and pov". Specificaly, he deleted the two references from official statistics and a peer-reviewed journal, on health inequalities in the United States. This deletion was made for political reasons, namely to remove from the article anything reflecting badly on the United States and the Bush administration. There are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed articles about the gross health inequalities in the United States - I left out a quote about rising infant mortality under the Bush administration. Ruzmanci 18:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You refer to this section [24]. You make many claims about statistics but for the most part do not provide any. You provide some sources regarding inequality for ethnic groups in the US. This is not proof that this is true for all democracies or that things are better in nondemocracies. Even your source states that infant mortality has decreased for blacks in the US, even if it has decreased more for whites. Thus, your text is extremely misleading and pov.

In other sections you make numerous strange and often false claims that seem like personal opinions without any references: "most supporters of democracy consider it to be the only ethically legitimate form of government, and believe it should replace all other forms of government." " Although all forms of government have defects, supporters of democracy are often reluctant to concede that it is less than perfect, which in turn may hinder its reform." "Democracies have been accused of being ineffective in wars. Note that this is presented as an advantage of democracy in the 'pacifist democracy' thesis, which is part of Democratic Peace Theory." " Nevertheless it indicates a real shift in thinking about liberal democracy: the most notable thing about these lists is, that they do not describe a form of government at all. A country could ensure all civil rights and political freedoms, and simply not hold elections: if the rights and freedoms define democracy, then it would be a democracy.." Ultramarine 19:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that the Freedom House's ranking of political rights for different nations includes fair and free elections. Ultramarine 19:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that Freedom House's ranking includes as full democracies several dubiously free, dubiously democratic, and since failed governments. Septentrionalis 16:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine is notorious on Wikipedia for this kind of behavior. There is an arbitration thing against him going on right now: [25] Looks like anyone who is interested can chime in. RJII 18:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Statistics

Those who wish to present a positive image of the democracies would be wise to avoid health statistics. Someone else, perhaps that was Ultramarine, presented among other things the Human Development Index as evidence of the superiority of democracy. Anyone who reads the HDI country reports, will know they are critical of health inequalities and poverty rates in some democracies, and especially in democratising countries. The one-sided picture has now been corrected, and that is the prime purpose of referencing some official statistics, and an article on infant mortality rates. It is not necessary or relevant to list every poverty statistic here, or to list every national census bureau that maintains them. Of course non-democracies have poverty and inequalities, the problem was the suggestion that democracies are perfect in this respect, or that democracy ends poverty and guarantees a better life for all. It doesn't, and on theoretical grounds that should not be expected, since majority rule will tend to cumulate majority advantage - and therefore minority disadvantage.Ruzmanci 11:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

List of proposed changes

Dubious claims without sources

"It is a universal ideology: most supporters of democracy consider it to be the only ethically legitimate form of government, and believe it should replace all other forms of government." Source please. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"Democratisation is the replacement of these non-democratic forms by a democracy, and the historical impact of modern democracy consists mainly in successive democratisations of nation-states". Historical impacts links to The End of History and the Last Man? Please provide source for that democratization is main historical impact of democracy and not for example a reduction of famine or more peacefulness in nations. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"They accomplish the first by insisting upon woman's suffrage as an essential component of liberal democracy; the second by including several states whose claims to liberality or democracy were questionable in 2000" Please provide source for that Freedom house made errors is the classification in 2000. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"Failure of political legitimacy usually occurs when the unity of the state itself is disputed, through separatism, internal ethnic or religious conflicts, or irredentism. It can however result from conflicting political orientations, such as those preceding the Spanish Civil War." The most common historical cause of failure of political legitimacy is probably exploitation by autocracies and oligarchies of the rest of the population, causing uprisings. Please provide a source supporting that your causes is usual ones. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"In a democracy, a high degree of political legitimacy is necessary, because the electoral process periodically divides the population into 'winners' and 'losers'." Autocracies and oligarchies divide the population permanently into 'winners' and 'losers'. Is there a source for the claim? Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"The term capitalism is no longer generally used in Europe, except to refer to the 19th century", Source please. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no requirement whatsoever to provide 'sources' in the form of a peer-reviewed study, for every general statement about any subject, and and at leats 99% of all statements on Wikipedia are unreferenced. There is certainly no requirement to edit this article, so that anything which might possibly suggest anything negative about democracy be removed. For instance, I never saw any example of any pro-democracy theorist or author, who thought it was a good idea that other countries were dictatorships. I repeatedly see western pro-democracy supporters assert that it should apply elsewhere, in Burma or Tibet or the Congo. Universal ideology is the correct term. It is not the purpose of this article to provide a libertarian hagiography of democracy, and it should not be written in that way.Ruzmanci 11:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I have previously asked you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. In addition, read Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not the place to express personal opinions and new research. In addition, you do not seem to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and a general statement. Personal observations by you is not evidence for a general law, you need statistics, surveys, and similar methods. Ultramarine 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Statements with dubious source

Your section on poverty has removed statements supported by several peer-reviewed studies about the effect between capitalism and democracy. Instead you have replaced them with a long quote from an opinion article, claiming that economic growth is no longer causes democratization. Here is a recent peer-reviewed study on the subject. There have been studies that showed that economic growth is not important for democratization itself, but it was important in order for the state to remain democratic. With better methods, economic growth is shown to affect democratization [26]. Ultramarine 02:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed several referenced statements that capitalism leads to more economic growth. Even if true, that belongs in the capitalism article, it is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage of democracy. The rewritten section explains that there is a cause-and-effect problem here. Even pro-democracy, pro-capitalism researchers can not agree on what leads to what. The research paper you refer to, is in fact about the hypothesis that 'modernisation' (including high GDP/capita) explains the degree of democracy. It can not therefore serve as evidence of the advantages of democracy, although from a pro-democracy view it is evidence of the advantages of high GDP/capita. The quote from Foreign Affairs is relevant and significant, in that it signals recognition by the US policy elite, that economic growth will not necessarily lead to democracy, in China especially.Ruzmanci 11:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The opinion article is opinion. You removed referenced studies showing the effect of economic freedom on political freedom, including statements of causality. Less poverty for democracies is certainly an advantage, and there should be a discussion with factual references and not opinions regarding the causes of this. Ultramarine 17:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Unclear statements

"There are other procedures, including surviving citizens assemblies." Do you mean that people are killed? Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is a facetious objection, which seem intended to waste time on answering it.Ruzmanci 12:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result. In Europe, eurosceptic nationalists argue that the European Union does exactly that, and the EU has created a parallel democratic structure in the European Parliament. That means that EU member states do, to a certain extent, have two forms of government, and the status of a 'democratic Europe' is contentious and unresolved." Most nations have different democratic elections for local and national authorities. This does not make the local elections less democratic. Please explain what you mean. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)~

• Eurosceptics would never accept that their nation-state is a sub-unit of the EU, in their view European elections are at best a parallel institution, and at worst something organised by a foreign superpower against their will.Ruzmanci 12:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Then this a political view regarding whether there should be one European state or many. That does not belong in a general article about democracy. Ultramarine 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Democracies, in specific areas and for specific groups, do limit political freedom, but perhaps less so than other forms of government..." You have just previously stated "The most often quoted criteria for liberal democracy take the form of specific rights and freedoms." Do democracies have political freedom or not? Ultramarine 00:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)~

• The criteria, which are in fact used to define liberal democracies, include political freedoms. Whether the democracies, as so defined, are in fact free, is a value judgment. The examples illustrate that they often don’t meet those criteria themselves.Ruzmanci 12:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It is quite different to state that democracies limit political freedom and to state that political freedom is not freedom. Do you mean both or one of them? Ultramarine 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The long, strange argument in the poverty section. Are you saying that it would better if there is absolute equality but all live in misery? Again, note for example infant mortality has decreased for all. Are you saying that it would be better with a higher infant mortality for all if there were more equality regarding the infant mortality? Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)~

• It does not say anything on that issue at all, it simply gives examples. The quote on infant mortality is clear enough for readers to make their own judgment on the US. The statistic is there because the previous version falsely implied that there was unequivocal statistical evidence of the superiority of democracies in respect of health and human development.Ruzmanci 12:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, the US is not all democracies. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that there is increasing inequality in democracies and that this is an inherent defect. As a first step, please show that there is increasing inequality in democracies in general. Ultramarine 17:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The section "Inappropriate borders" seems to be criticism of all states. Not all democracies needs a state, for example some of the socialist visions. Thus it is in the wrong article. Ultramarine 00:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"Again, winning wars is not an objective standard: it is clearly an advantage for the winner, but a disadvantage for the loser." We are discussing democracies here, so if they are the winners then this is an advantage for democracies. Ultramarine 00:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

"The widely quoted Freedom House surveys are usually seen as a measure of 'democracy' in each country, but rate primarily human, civil, and political rights. This may simply be propagandistic - democracy is presented as a list of 'good things' - but it is notable that rights are not in themselves a form of government. (In theory, a country could ensure all civil rights and political freedoms, and simply not hold elections)." The Freedom House's ranking of political rights for different nations includes fair and free elections. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• I already changed the wording of this section to meet this objection, including the qualifier 'primarily'. Now the same objection is posted again. Note that there is an ongoing arbitration against user Ultramarine.Ruzmanci 12:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Freedom House scores nations on two things, political rights and civil liberties. Not "primarily", but on those two things which include elections. Thus, your statement "In theory, a country could ensure all civil rights and political freedoms, and simply not hold elections" is false. Ultramarine 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"However in many democracies, anti-democratic expression is specifically excluded from this freedom." On the contrary, most liberal democracies allows books like "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto" to be published. It is action against liberal democracies that are usually prohibited, not the expression of ideas. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• The State of Bavaria owns the copyright of Mein Kampf and forbids all publication, anywhere. All post-1945 editions are illegal. And several EU states now deport radical Islamist clerics solely for their preaching.Ruzmanci 12:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You can get Mein Kampf within 24 hours from Amazon, no copyright problems in English. Copyright is generally not viewed a limitation on freedom of speech. There are numerous neo-nazi webstites in the US. There may be some limitation of speech for those directly advocating terrorist acts, but this is not general evidence that "in many democracies, anti-democratic expression is specifically excluded from this freedom". Ultramarine 18:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Democracies have been accused of being ineffective in wars. Note that this is presented as an advantage of democracy in the 'pacifist democracy' thesis, which is part of Democratic Peace Theory." No version of the DPT states that democracies are ineffective in wars or that this is an advantage. Provide source if claiming otherwise. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• The reluctance to go to war - which is disputed anyway - is equivalent to the claimed peaceful nature of democracies. Certainly the term 'ineffective' could be clarified, but I did not put it there.Ruzmanci 12:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You added "Note that this is presented as an advantage of democracy in the 'pacifist democracy' thesis, which is part of Democratic Peace Theory." Thus you are arguing that the DPT which shows that democracies are peaceful, especially against each other, in fact argues that democracies are ineffective in wars. This in false and pov. Ultramarine 18:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory

The whole section as it currently reads is pov and has factual inaccuracies in almost every sentence. Please see the referenced version of the Democratic peace theory article and the "List of proposed changes" in the talk page of that article. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The so-called referenced version is in fact a one-sided version heavily re-written by user Ultramarine, generally attempting to present the work of R. J. Rummel as DPT itself. There is an editing dispute. Ultramarine's behaviour at that article is one reason for the requested arbitration.Ruzmanci 12:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit controversies and Ultramarine

User Ultramarine made a large number of objections to content of the article. I attempted to explain the purpose of the specific content, and why the objections were insufficient. However, he simply tries to enter into a new contoversy, either by querying the logic of my comment, or introducing new issues which are not in any version of the Democracy article. Additionally, Ultramarine regularly refers to Wikipedia guidelines as if they constitute an authorisation for his edits and especially deletions. They do not, but there is no reason to enter into controversy about this either.

This is not a discussion forum, and if there is an editing dispute, there is a procedure for that. Posting endless queries about the same content is not appropriate. For the arbitration issue, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Ultramarine

Ruzmanci 09:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This has been Ultramarine's practice on several articles; I know of Democratic peace theory, Criticisms of communism, and Vladimir Lenin.

• First, the list of proposed changes, which he expects other editors to implement. Wikipedia expects its editors to be bold with such changes, especially a list of local changes; Wikipedia then expects editors to accept that they will be edited mercilessly in return.
  • Ultramarine consistently chooses to do neither of these. The reason may not be beyond conjecture; but I couldn't possibly comment. Instead he
• repeatedly demands the same text; even when it is deprecated by consensus or is a cut-and-paste copyvio
• insists that "his" text is "correct", being from peer-reviewed articles — even when it is being deprecated for some other reason, like PoV or style.
• insists that the "enemies of liberal democracy" are censoring the Truth.
• sets up his own PoV fork of the article.
• claims {{twoversions}} is a form of protection.
• persistently reverts to "his" "correct" version
• demands actual page protection, with "his version on top", on account of the one-man edit war he been engaged in.

This is what he has done on other articles, and is still doing on Democratic peace theory. He has not proceeded beyond the first step here. One assumes, of course, he has reformed. Septentrionalis 02:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Add the capitalism article to that list. A few months ago he was a very unethical in editing that article as well ..caused a lot of unnecessary problems. RJII 01:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The extreme left and right unite. I am flattered. Ultramarine 06:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with left and right, but a rogue editor. RJII 11:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

RJII is of course correct that this has nothing to do with worldly politics, but with conduct on Wikipedia. As a lifelong centrist, however, I do wonder where the extreme left and right come into it. Perhaps RJII is both of them. :-)Septentrionalis 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I was one of the leaders of the conservative debating society at college; I was even called an anarcho-capitalist once. My views have not changed much since then; I suppose this leaves the extreme left for RJII. Congratulations. Septentrionalis 19:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Political legitimacy

I restored the points about democracy needing shared values and a high degree of political legitimacy. These are not dubious personal opinions, but standard remarks about democracy by its advocates and by political scientists, especially in the context of democratisation. Obviously, democracy fails if the losing party and its supporters shoot the incoming government. Obviously there are winners and losers in an election, there is no reason why this whole issue should be deleted to avoid the term 'losers'.

As far as values are concerned, unity of basic values precedes acceptance of democratic values. I used earlier the example of things like human sacrifice or compulsory child prostitution. Voters in western countries know the opposition won't implement such policies, which are mortally abhorent to them. That is because they know the population shares their abhorrence. If this breaks down - as with the prospect of Islamic city governments in Europe in about 30 years time - the democratic process is itself in trouble. Why would Ultramarine delete this point about shared cultural values? Presumably because it implies that the population are not motivated by pure and joyous commitment to democracy itself.

I also clarified the failure of legitimacy, to refer to modern states. Political civil wars are much less common than ethnic spearatism. Poverty, corruption and famine do not generally lead to failure of legitimacy, unfortunately, they tend to be accepted. Starving people are not in a position to overthrow their government anyway. (In Somalia the breakdown of central authority was the cause, rather than the effect, of famine).Ruzmanci 10:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Somalia has a lower rate of abject poverty than its neighbors. Some credit the lack of "central authority" for their increasing prosperity. [27] [28] RJII 12:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting point. Thanks for the links. --Christofurio 12:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Amazing that someone can call Somalia a success when the statistics state that they have a much higher Adult illiteracy rate, much lower Population with access to safe water, a much lower Per capita household income, and much lower school enrollment than other West African nations. Their justice system is clan based and doesn't work outside the clan. Inflation destroyed their currency. The "bank" system charges a 5% fee for a transaction. The road system is deteriorating. On the other hand, the rich have access to mobile phones and air travel :). Ultramarine 13:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

10% of the population have voted with their feets and fled the Anarchy to states. Health standards are among the worst in Africa. Close to 80% of the population have no access to healthcare and trained medical personnel attend to just 2% of births. Maternal and infant mortality are now among the highest in the world – one of every four children does not reach the age of five. When General Siad Barre's government fell in 1991, the entire education system collapsed [29]. Ultramarine 13:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet they have a lower rate of abject poverty than their neighbors with governments. Go figure. You can't expect to civilization to be immediately be prosperous when it has suddenly been cast into anarchy and lost everything. The remarkable thing is what has happened since. They're on their way up from having nothing at all. It proves that central authority is not needed for economic development. RJII 14:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That 43% compared to 52% live under $1/day is not a large difference. Compare to Average household income 226 vs 438. Illiteracy 81% vs 35%. Access to safe water 21% vs. 60%. Primary school enrollment 17% vs. 82%. The somewhat lower number for the poverty line may be related to that poorest have fled the Anarchy or have been killed. Or related to the lower Gini number, a clan based society that shares possessions may have lower inequality. But this does not sound very capitalistic :) Ultramarine 16:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you would expect things to be great there when there is a lack of law and order. Crime is rampant there --property is stolen and lives are lost. My point was is in reply to Ruzmanci who claimed that "famine" in Somalia was due to a lack of central authority. If there are less people living in abject poverty in Somalia than in neighboring countries with central authority, then it doesn't make sense to argue that the lack of central authority is the reason for "famine" in Somalia. I don't think it's difficult to realize that the reason there is less abject poverty in Somalia is because of economic development --jobs are being created. And the study cited indicates that central authority is not needed for economic development. And, in the article I cited about the telecommunications industry there, it appears that the lack of central authority is the reason that that industry is serving the public better than in neighboring countries with a central authority regulating that industry. RJII 23:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

'Famine' referred to the great Horn of Africa famines of the 1980's and 1990's. The only reason I mentionned it was, that they might be used as a counter-example. The issue is whether corruption, famine and poverty lead to collapse of legitimacy, and the historical experience is that they do not, otherwise many more regimes would have failed. Legitimacy failure seems to result primarily from ethnic and religious divisions, when a section of the population feel they are in the 'wrong country', for instance Canada and Spain have a legitimacy problem in Quebec and the Basque country. And occasionally there are political civil wars.Ruzmanci 11:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this article

This is, I'm ashamed to say, one of the worst Wikipedia articles I've ever seen on a major concept. It is in desperate need of a rewrite by someone who actually knows something about the concept. Let me point out some of the errors, and this is just from the first few paragraphs:

• The concept of democracy was not 'forgotten' from Ancient Greek times until 1500 - most parts of the world never knew anything about it.
• The church did not 'rule the world' from Ancient Greek times until 1500. In most parts of the world the church did not exist for that time. Even in Europe the statement ignores Feudalism, the rise of the nation state, and whole other areas of actual history.
• The intro can't make up it's mind if it's giving an overview of history or benefits.
• We shouldn't have one-sentence paragraphs.

People, we can do better than this. DJ Clayworth 14:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC) .........

I have studied en/wikipedia for some time now, and I see how american views are poisoning and distorting practically everything here.

There is a simple solution to this problem. Rename en/wikipedia to am/wikipedia, because that's what it is. There is no chance that we will ever be able to write a neutral encyklopedia as long as americans dominate the encyclopedia.

   Doesn't this go against the very premise of Wikipedia?? After all, Americans are pretty much split down the line in regards to political beliefs, and certainly display a great amount of diversity in their opinions on other topics. One would imagine this comes out in the wash due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. - Guest

The article on democracy is a collection of all the propaganda against democracy distributed from the american propaganda system.

   What country has made you so bitter that you think America is a bastion of anti-democratic thought? - Guest

It is very anti-democracy. And we cannot expect anything else as long as american right wing authors are working hard to sabotage anything which is not part of their view of the world.

    Considering most people using Wikipedia fall are young (relatively speaking) I would imagine, and this demographic (at least in the US) tends to be "left wing" as opposed to "right wing", your statement doesnt' make much sense. Furthermore, attributing a stance against democracy to the "right wing" doesn't make any sense either. - Guest

There was an interesting study published a few days ago. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

This study compared the relation between religion and society. The most creationist country in the industrialized world is also the most dysfunctional society. Britain is a lot better on most social factors, and less religious. Scandinavia, France and Japan are the best societies in the world, according to this study, and the least religious.

    I think it is clear that whenever one refers to a society being "better" than another, the range of ambiguity makes one's argument meaningless. In making these claims, one is bound to choose certain criterion, which is never completely satisfactory. - Guest

I don't think it is possible to create an en/wikipedia, an international version in english, unless we somehow could stop americans from participating, which seems both technically and ethically problematic.

    And besides being technically and ethically problematic, by excluding an English speaking country, you are making an en/wikipedia impossible. - Guest

Let's face it, we are not working on en/wikipedia, we are working on am/wikipedia, and all non-americans should maybe back off and see this en/wikipedia as a collection of anti-democratic, anti-political and religious views of the average american, echoing the propaganda their government has bonked into those poor american brains to be able to rule the world.

     These comments regarding the "average american" are simply opinion, based on no reasonable grounds, whatsoever. - Guest

Roger4911 12:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

We really are flattered by your envy. Your sub 2 trillion GDP is just so cute.

Breadboy 5:43, 9 October 2005 (EST)

Frankly I do not see the relevance of your post Roger4911. It would not appear to me that Ruzmanci is an "American" -more properly a citizen of the United States of America- or what some have called "Neo-Cons". Rather it appears that he is as far away from a "Neo-Con" as can be.

He does occasionally make what seem to be valid points. It is a requisite for a democracy to succeed that the citizens can come to a basic cultural agreement to abide by the democratic process.

I must say that I do not agree with the section Poverty and Famine or the section Democratic War and Democratic Peace.

I do not feel that the Section Democratic War and Democratic Peace are required as part of this article and should perhaps be moved to a seperate entry.

I feel that the Poverty and Famine section is not only badly written, but is also using fallacious arguments and is also an unnecessary attachment.

For example.

"In addition, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that the democratic states have failed to relieve massive and acute poverty in non-democratic states, despite their (democracies) generally higher GDP per capita."

This would deserve to be in an article of its own. In that article the following points could be raised. How much responsibility can be laid at the feet of the non-democratic rulers for the poverty of their citizens. For example Eqautorial Guenia in Africa could be brought up as an example. The people their live wretched lives because their rulers are siphoning state money -from oil revenues- into private accounts.

Another point that could be addressed in its own article would be "Obligations of successful democratic societies to failed non democratic states"

Evidence that can be submitted for the seperate "Poverty Famine and Dictatorship" article would be the current situation in Southern Africa.

A drought is currently affecting the area threating millions with famine. Most indicatively Zimbabwe. The two countries in the region that are suffering the least effects are democracies/republics (Botswana and South Africa) and have been so (South Africa with a limited francise up until 1994) for decades. I live in South Africa and can see the result of the famine and dictatorship in Zimbabwe every time I see an illegal imigrant from that country.

I also fail to see how the arguments of Amartya Kumar Sen are being misrepresented. This excerpt from http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/jod/10.3sen.html

"have discussed elsewhere the remarkable fact that, in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred [End Page 7] in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.4 We cannot find exceptions to this rule, no matter where we look: the recent famines of Ethiopia, Somalia, or other dictatorial regimes; famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; China's 1958-61 famine with the failure of the Great Leap Forward; or earlier still, the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule. China, although it was in many ways doing much better economically than India, still managed (unlike India) to have a famine, indeed the largest recorded famine in world history: Nearly 30 million people died in the famine of 1958-61, while faulty governmental policies remained uncorrected for three full years. The policies went uncriticized because there were no opposition parties in parliament, no free press, and no multiparty elections. Indeed, it is precisely this lack of challenge that allowed the deeply defective policies to continue even though they were killing millions each year. The same can be said about the world's two contemporary famines, occurring right now in North Korea and Sudan."

This seems to be the core of his argument. Democratic states are first and foremost responsible to the people who elect them. Indeed, democratic states should only have influence over those who participate(or can participate) in electing them. If the democratic nations have to accept responsibility and blame for the failures of non-democratic states and the suffering of the citizens of those countries, there can be no other alternative than direct military intervention to create the required reforms in the non-democratic nations. In effect it would be a second colonization, and would be resisted fiercely by those societies re-colonized.

Another point in this section also bears scrutiny.

"Similarly, internal inequalities are often discounted in assessing the standard of living in democracies. In some democratic states, a high national score on the human development index (HDI) is accompanied by differentials in health, education, and income among ethnic groups. In the United States, in every state, infant mortality is higher for African-Americans then for whites.[8]"

This is not significantly different from non-democratic countries. For example the living conditions of the majority of Islamic northerners in Sudan is vastly superior to that of the Christian/Animist southerners. In short, there are disparities in any society. However even the majority of the black citizens of the United States of America have a better quality of live due to being in a democracy. Especially in non democratic African countries a similar disparity can be found. Those sharing the ethnic background of the ruling party often have a better standard of live than those of differing ethnic backgrounds.

I propose the deletion of these two sections as they add nothing but controversy to this article.

Regards Dirk Reinecke

True Democracy

True Democracy - The complete majority, or the number of votes with respect to the ENTIRE group. Not original by itself, but certainly rarely practiced. The rule of the people versus the rule of dictators and of factions. Full majority is oftentimes required in court decisions of both judges and jurists, in various religious conferences, in US presidential impeachments, in US constitutional ammendments (I'm an American so I speak that experience), in many family decisions, etc. It appears that factions arise from minority control and that relative democracy (where the percentage of the voters is "considered the majority;" certainly not of the demos!) brings minority rule. True Democracy does not permit society or government to ignore any persons views or to violate the privacy of any group smaller than a majority. Andy Landen

Roger: The people who do not vote are letting the others decide for them. It is a good way to handle it if you do not think you know enough to decide. The result is the decision of all who were interested enough to go and vote. That is seen as the decision of the majority, even if not all people choose to use their right to vote. In a really democratic country there are no further demands on the voter than that they go and vote, if they like. In some, less democratic, countries big groups of eligible voters are hindered from voting with the help of registration or other procedures you have to go through to be allowed to vote. These procedures can be difficult or dangerous for ethic minorities, for example black people were discouraged or threatened if they tried to register, or tried to vote, in some southern states in USA. That is something you should complain about if you live in such a country. In a modern democracy you get a voting card by mail a month before the election, and you can vote on a post office or in the regular voting place. Roger4911 18:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The consideration of the votes with respect to the entire body politic is a unique idea only when combined with the Law of Equality. It is not practiced often, but falls into complete harmony with True Democracy. It is exercised throughout the world in various forms and is now actively being considered in light of the Iraq war.

People generally accept that a relative majority is as good as the true majority, but immediately object to a proposal to seek the true majority opinion. They fear that the true majority will not agree with the relative majority (i.e. their particular faction) and that the true majority will not support or will not consider their issues when raised in elections.

The absense of voting only indicates the lack of interest in the issues or in the solutions. It does NOT imply that they want whatever the relative majority wants. -- Andy Landen 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If people do not "like the alternatives" they can always start a new party, which represents the views of them and others who think alike. This is surely mentioned somewhere on the democracy page?

Minority parties often have to create an alliance after an election, or before the election, to be able to form a government. For example in my country the social democrats are supported by the greens and the left socialists so they can form a government. The four rightwing and religious parties are forming an alliance to take the power at the next election. If they can get more votes than the red-green-left alliance.

That's how democracy works. Do you have a better idea? By the way, there are countries which demand a real majority, like inYugoslavia, or Serbia, where they couldn't get a new government for years because of low voter participation. Roger4911 01:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

self-government

Some editors are trying to equating democracy with "the people rule themselves" and "self-government." It think it needs to be made clear that this is the supposed idealism behind democracy but in actuality it's the majority that does the ruling. Actual self-government and people ruling themselves is anarchism. That the majority should prevail is a collectivist concept, not an individualist one. RJII 14:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger4911: You changed the beginning of the page again, without discussion here in the talk page, so I hope somebody reverts your ill founded changes.

The "anarchism" you like has never been able to present a practical system, even in theory, for cooperation between individuals, and even less, a system for taking important decisions in a country.

You are obviously an enemy of democracy, and you want desperately to change the common definition into something more negative, more confusing, and less correct.

Why don't you concentrate on describing, on the Anarchist page, how your preferred system would work in real life?

If you do it well, and can agree with other anarchists about your alternative to democracy, you might attract some support for anarchism.

Anarchists should not tell the readers what democracy means. They haven't even decided among themselves what anarchism means. Roger4911 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I've never professed to be an anarchist and I've never claimed to oppose democracy. Besides, my personal values are irrelevant. Stick to the subject matter and trying to improve the article. Merriam-Webster defines democracy as: "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority" That's all I'm trying to get across here --implemented democracy is rule by the majority. "Self-government" can't be democracy unless you consider an entire populace as a "self." In actuality, a populace is a number of selves. In a democracy, the majority rules, not the "self." RJII 15:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger4911: If you are not an anarchist why do you write: "Some editors are trying to equating democracy with "the people rule themselves" and "self-government." It think it needs to be made clear that this is the supposed idealism behind democracy but in actuality it's the majority that does the ruling. Actual self-government and people ruling themselves is anarchism." here above?

Why involve anarchism at all, unless you think that is a system superior to democracy? Roger4911 16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Doctrine

Is anyone else familiar with the Democracic Doctrine, formed by French radicals during the French Enlightenment of 1650-1750? The three basic ideas of the doctrine include:

• Popular Sovereignty
• Equal Rights
• Majority Rule

This may be an important point to include about the formation, history, and basis of democracy if anyone is knowledgable of it. My awareness of it is, unfortunately, not enough to describe it in great detail. Further, would anyone agree that democracy is a doctrine (i.e. a system of beliefs as to how things " 'ought to be" ?

Freedom House definition -- a point of departure for this article?

In looking at the political science literature on democracy I very frequently see reference to Freedom House and its ratings system. [30] This is not to say that it is uinversally accepted, but because it is so widely known and because the methodology is explicit, it seems to me that it makes a natural and helpful point of departure for any serious discussion of the subject.

Some political scientists criticize the FH ratings as too heavily weighted toward formal institutions and suggest that this can be corrected by also considering the World Bank's governance indicators. [31] This seems like a good approach to me.

--Will O'Neil 20:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My point is that a real majority system (I call it True democracy) belongs in Wikipedia. I hear that Switzerland also requires a real majority, and even the US government sometimes requires that in congressional presidential impeachments or constitutional ammendments and the like.

Traditional politics of "alliances" and "vote brokering" empower factions and special interests while undermining the will of the true majority. Ultimately, government must not be permitted to be controlled by a minority, ever (though protection of individual rights must reign inviolate). The people must always retain the power to "easily" reverse the decisions of their representatives as a real majority. People will participate when the issues are important; they always do.-- Andy Landen 18:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)