Talk:Democracy

Rights and Freedoms

Democracy is about civil rights and personal freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and suffrage are some of the fundamental rights and freedoms in democracy. In democratic nations, life, liberty, and property cannot be taken away without legal cause. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" -Constitution of the United States of America

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)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. The material that was suggested to be transfered has been integrated under the heading of Democracy#Hybrid democracy.→Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 18:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that Varieties of democracy be merged into Democracy. I think that the content in the Varieties of democracy article can easily be explained in the context of Democracy, and the Democracy article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Varieties of democracy will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong merge: So long as the information is preserved, I'm for this. In particular, I'd like to see the information in Varieties of democracy#Hybrid democracy receive its own subsection under Democracy#Forms, since the Democracy page does not currently include any information about hybrid democracy. Other relevant, sourced information in Varieties of democracy could be merged into the appropriate sections of Democracy#Forms, but I would want to avoid merging much of the substantive info into Outline of democracy#Types of democracy, since the outline page is supposed to be rather light on details. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Democracy Index tables

These tables should be alphabetized -- it's difficult to find a specific country. Also, tables are not the best way to present this data, columnized lists would be better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Currently the order is according to the Democracy Index, but if you prefer alphabetic, be my guest. :) Moreover, if you dislike the idea of the table, I would not be offended if you just take it out, and would not revert. I am not so sure about the table myself, and thought just to give it a try. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 01:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If they are in some specific order that the Index placed them in, that's fine, but a table doesn't give you any clue if it should be read down or across. Were the countries numbered? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

They are ranked in the original publication and in our Democracy Index article. I put in captions to that effect. I am not sure I need to repeat the caption in the second table. Please correct me there if I am wrong. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, the list is ugly. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 03:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It takes up less space than the table, and presents the order of the data unambiguosly. The table was unnecessary and ambiguous, even with your note at the bottom.

When I was preparing the list to replace the second table, I realized that taking that amount of information (country and ranking) directly from the Index was straying into WP:COPYVIO territory, so I've replaced it with an alphabetical listing of the countries in text form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I acctually don't think that the ranking should be stressed at all, as it is just a number someone put together. The bigger issue for me is that we lost all the flags and links. This article serves mostly middle and high-school students, and for them I think color is very important. But, it is a matter of taste. If space is of concern we can always use a smaller font. Prototime, do you have a preference? →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 03:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The rankings are based on the scores which generate the index value, which determines what category the country falls into, so they're not irrelevant at all. The links are there, and the use of flags is generally deprecated -- and all of Wikipedia's artles are aimed at a general audience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the use of flags being generally deprecated; scores of articles on Wikipedia use flags in conjunction with national or international subjects. See, for example, United Nations, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, and Syrian civil war, just to name a few of the numerous articles that use flags. While not of utmost importance, for consistency and aesthetic appeal, flags are appropriate and should probably be used in this article as well. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:FLAGS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While flag icons are by no means forbidden, the guidelines recommend that their use be severely limited. In this situation, the flag icon is mere decoration, because a picture of the flag of Norway does not convey any more information than the word "Norway" does -- in fact, it conveys less, because the word can exist on its own, but for the vast majority of people, the flag will have little or no meaning until the word gives it context. Because of this, the flag icon is simply a pretty decoration, with no encyclopedic value. Please don't restore the flag icons and make an issue out of it, because it's one that you will eventually lose: the tide is certainly running against the unnecessary use of flags icons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Democracy-Repression Nexus and the Democracy Continuum

Democracy-repression nexus and democratic continuum don't appear to have articles. I'm wondering if they should be included in this article? or if they should have separate articles? or if they already exist under some other title? looking for advice.AnieHall (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Patriarchy

I had an edit removed for repeatedly adding "patriarchy" to types of governmental systems in the opening paragraphs to this article. I will summarize the debate so far. First, my edit was deleted because an editor said patriarchy is a social system, not a governmental system, so I added a source to the dictionary definition of patriarchy which says it is a type of governmental system. The edit was also removed because it was suggested that patriarchy was not part of the philosophical discussion of ancient Greece, so I added a source for Aristotle's discussion of patriarchy as a model of power distribution in society and government. Then I had the edit removed because the editor said that patriarchy is both a governmental system and a social system and also that it is already included in the term "oligarchy" that is mentioned in the article. The editor requested that I take this debate to the talk section, which I am respectfully doing, so I will address the last two reasons for deleting my edit. First, it is not a logical argument to say that because something is by definition both A AND B that you cannot cite it as and example of A. Patriarchy being both a social and governmental system does not effect the legitimacy of referencing it as a governmental system here. Why should it? That is a specious argument, in my opinion. Second, patriarchy is not a type of oligarchy for two reasons. Oligarchy is, specifically "rule of the few" and men, as a class, are nearly half the population. Also, if patriarchy is a type of oligarchy, then Athenian democracy was an oligarchy, because it was a patriarchy, which contradicts the meaning of the sentence in question, that democracy and oligarchy were in opposition in Athenian political philosophy. Obviously the Greeks did not think patriarchy was a type of oligarchy, as they did not see their society as an oligarchy and it was a patriarchy. The patriarchal nature of Athenian and Early American democracies are often left invisible in discussions of political theory. However, this is 2012, and this article should reflect the consciousness of today, not the biases of history. I want to stress that I am not adding bias, I am removing it. I was respectful enough to take this debate to the talk page when requested (even though I have repeatedly shown the evidence to refute the arguments of the editors who deleted my edits). In fact, I think the burden of proof should be on the editors who are deleting my edits, as I have supplied citations and proofs for my arguments, but the editors who deleted did not.Amyluna13 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I would like to point out that Wikipedia operates on consensus. There is no "burden of proof" that falls on the editors; if a change to an article is made that other editors disagree with, then the appropriate action is to discuss it to try to develop consensus, just as you are doing now on the talk page. If no consensus can be reached, then per WP:NOCONSENSUS the result is that the proposed change is not added to the article. Hopefully we can avoid that here.

Concerning the content you would like to add to the article, I fail to understand what relevance patriarchy has in the context you are presenting it in. A couple points: 1) patriarchy is not, first and foremost, a form of government. As numerous sources cited on the patriarchy article suggest, the term is used primarily to refer to a social system where men dominate over women. Feminists generally agree that the United States has a "patriarchy" even though the franchise is fully extended to women. Your use of the term "patriarchy" as a form of government is a narrow use of the word. 2) Assuming patriarchy is a form of government, it does not exist on the same level of generality as a monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy. Rather, it is a subtype or feature of government. I mentioned in an edit summary that patriarchy is a form of oligarchy, where men rule without election; it can also exist in a democracy where the franchise is restricted to men (which arguably would be a mixed democratic/oligarchic state). Either way, it is not a term used on the same level of generality as monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy. It is more akin to more specific terms like bureaucracy or technocracy, which describe features of governments that may be ruled by one, a few, or many (monarchy, oligarchy, democracy). Under your reasoning, the sentence should also include other specific terms like matriarchy and describe governments where only particular races or religions can rule. I do not understand your fixation on including specifically patriarchy. 3) While Greek philosophers may have discussed patriarchy, it was not included in their formulations of the basic types of governments--unlike democracy, monarchy, and oligarchy, which were included. See, for example, Politics (Aristotle).

In summary, using patriarchy in the way you suggest appears to conflict with its common usages and gives the term undue weight in the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your time. I understand the definition of consensus. My point was that one person does not a consensus make. :) My use of the term "burden of proof" was not meant to be taken in a legal or literal sense, but in the spirit of argumentation, in that a negation in and of itself is not a valid argument. So I am glad that you elaborated further on your positions, which I enjoyed reading, as I welcome an informed, intelligent, debate of complex issues. I believe I understand your arguments, but I disagree with them. I will address each of the facets of your positions individually.

First, if I understand you correctly, you are equating the demographic of biological sex (patriarchy) with the demographics of labor specialization, i.e clergy (theocracy), administrators (bureaucracy) or scientists (technocracy). In each of these three examples, authority was given and the structure of the government organized around a person's particular skill, qualification, and exercise thereof. Granting power through a demographic which one receives by virtue of their birth is a qualitatively different "elite" because in the case of labor demographics, the type of government is organized around that skill. However, in the case of patriarchy, being male does not determine how the government will function, only who may hold power. So the analogy does not hold.

Second, as previously stated, I disagree with you that since patriarchy is also a form of social and cultural distribution of power, that that negates the importance of it as a characteristic of governmental organization, as well. In fact, I believe pointing out the universality of patriarchy governmentally, socially and culturally is an argument in favor of the pervasive influence of this particular distribution of power that is so universal that it crosses these three lines, further highlighting the need to elevate it to a more prominent discussion regarding types of government, such as in this article. In other words, when something is so utterly universal in its influence, of course citing one particular area will be a "narrowing" of it's definition. But that does not invalidate its importance.

Third, you are claiming that the Greeks did not include patriarchy in their formulations of the basic types of governments. Oh. Yes. They. Did. :) A quote from the article you cited on "Politics"

"The highest form of community is the polis. Aristotle comes to this conclusion because he believes the public life is far more virtuous than the private. He comes to this conclusion because MEN are 'political animals.'" (emphasis mine)

Both directly and indirectly, Aristotle repeatedly referred to the quality of governance by men and why government and the distribution of power through government should be organized around biological sex. You are making the error of stating that because something is implicit or assumed, that it is therefore a subtype. Not so. Obviously the argument that the definition of democracy implies that men are the only sex equipped to govern is false, as the two ideas are no longer linked today. These were, at the time of the Athenians, as today, two entirely different lines of reasoning. First, that governmental organization should be such that all citizens have a voice (democracy) and second, that only males could be citizens by virtue of their sex (patriarchy). Athenian government, and the democracies that followed were a mix of democratic and patriarchal elements.

Fourth, patriarchy is not a subtype or feature of the three governments you cite. It is its own unique class, by virtue of the following distinctions

Democracy - rule of ALL people who are defined as citizens

Oligarchy - rule of FEW people who are defined as a predetermined elite by virtue of set qualities which vary from elite to elite (such as clergy, administrators or scientists)

Monarchy - rule of ONE person who is defined as succeeding through divine right

Patriarchy - rule of HALF the people, defined by their biological sex at birth

Fifth, patriarchy absolutely exists on the same level of generality as democracy, oligarchy and monarchy. In fact, it is even more general, as this type of governmental power distribution has blended with all three of these types. It is not a subtype, it is a hybrid element.

Finally, matriarchy is not relevant here, as it was neither discussed by the Greeks, nor has it manifested in governments pervasively throughout modern history, as patriarchy did (and still does).

In sum, you believe patriarchy to be a characteristic or demographic of an elite class, a subtype of oligarchy. As I said previously, under the Greek definitions, that would mean that Athenian government was an oligarchic democracy, and of course, the Athenians absolutely would not have characterized their society as such. They would have proudly characterized it (and implicitly did) as a patriarchal democracy. The only reason they didn't use the qualifier then is because at the time, patriarchal authority was assumed, ipso facto. The article states that contemporary governments have mixed elements. By definition and their own admission, Athenian government also had mixed elements--of patriarchy and democracy. People who argue otherwise sometimes say that democracy wasn't "perfected" until universal suffrage, but I believe that is a trivialization of the overt, stated intent by many throughout history, including the ancient Greeks, to organize power around biological sex as a means of power distribution and therefore a principle of governmental organization. In other words, it's so obvious and universal, it's invisible. But that doesn't mean it didn't or doesn't exist.

In addition, this article is sorely lacking in a discussion of the women's suffrage movement (the most revolutionary development in democracy and enfranchisement since Athens) and in it's historical use of the word "people" in instances referring to only "men." All of these references should be changed to "eligible citizens," otherwise, it is very misleading, as women are people and were not a part of these governments.

I would very much like to reach a consensus, so I look forward to hearing your refutations or compromises.Amyluna13 (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)