Talk:Democracy

This article is a battleground and is inherently flawed.

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

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

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

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

United States SHALL BE RED, NOT BLUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support-Bargaining

The theory of support-bargaining suggests that the systems of government recognised as 'democratic' are better understood as processes in which support is assembled in groups and organisations through support-bargaining. In political support-bargaining, parties formulate policies and proposals that will attract support. People give their support to parties in accordance with their acceptance or rejection of the policies and proposals on offer. An electoral system, understood as an artificial support-bargaining structure, is used to facilitate the emergence of a party with majority support in a legislature. In contrast with democratic theory, which has difficulty reconciling parties with popular rule, the theory gives a central role to political parties, as the most powerful agents of support-bargaining systems.

Support-bargaining theory also draws attention to the importance of finance for political parties. The assembly of support across a nation for the same policies involves substantial costs. Democratic theory has no understanding of parties and consequently no understanding of the importance of finance in political processes.

(end addition)

origins

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

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

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

Opening sentance is factually wrong

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

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

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

A simple rule to follow:

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

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

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

Proposal for indefinite semi-protection

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

On Anarchism

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

Equality and freedom

The current version of the article says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the links.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy is ?

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

Democracy

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

democarcy and traditions

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

File:Democracy claims.svg

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

Edit request from 74.235.33.202, 18 April 2010

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

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

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

"18th and 19th Centuries"

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

Erroneous rationale for deleting "Biblical foundations"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further information: [[:Moses]]

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Is entire section deletion acceptable with stated rationale?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am at a loss by your reply!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining words

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moses and democracy

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy does NOT imply equality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section more an essay

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

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

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

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

Democracy and Islam

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

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

Popular Rule as a facade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local democracy

I think it is much necessary to add a topic on local democracy; it is of course related to democracy and of high importance. There are many research titles about the issue.