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. "Feminists agree" that the United States is currently a social and cultural patriarchy, yes. But they also agree that it was previously a political patriarchy, prior to 1920. I would add that it is not a requirement to be a "feminist" in order to realize that this characterization of American government prior to 1920 is correct by definition, lol.

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 males should rule over females in both the government and the home for no other reason than their biological 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 its 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)

Of course there's a "burden of proof" for claims made in an article, it's called "secondary reliable sources needed". --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. Which is why I provided the secondary reliable sources for my edit (which specifically addressed the other editor's stated concerns), but the person deleting my edits did not, which did not seem to be acting in equal good faith and in line with wikipedia policy. I've noticed this trend before. Since it is wikipedia policy that if consensus cannot be reached an edit is not included, it's all too easy to have a tyranny of the minority who holds out against something simply because they do not personally wish for it to be included, not because they provided a sourced argument against it.

I also wish to add that this particular discussion and distinction in extremely relevant, even today, as emerging new governments in Egypt and elsewhere are being universally characterized as "democratic" revolutions, when they are clearly patriarchal democracies and should be referred to as such. It is erroneous to say that including this qualifier is a "fixation." On the contrary, not including it is a "fixation" of denial of the glaringly obvious.

Because I see this trend over and over as an editor, I wish to again point out that removing historical masculinist bias from wikipedia articles makes them neutral and therefore more scholarly accurate, not "feminist." The absence of masculine bias is neutrality, not female bias.Amyluna13 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is accusing you of of promoting a feminist bias, not me nor the other editor who reverted your change. Let's all assume good faith. Concerning your arguments:

1. and 4. The analogy does hold. Irrespective of whether the defining characteristic is immutable (like sex) or not, the point is that terms like patriarchy, technocracy, and theocracy all refer to government where the governors have a particular defining personal characteristic. Patriarchy is a qualitative description of government, not a quantitative description of government like monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. You say that patriarchy is "rule by HALF", but that is NOT what patriarchy actually means; there are other situations where rule is based on a defining personal characteristic other than biological sex yet still may numerically approximate "rule by HALF." I also dispute that religion is as "skill" as you claim it to be--in theocracies, people are born into and raised by religious groups, yet only one religion may rule. Theocracy, as well as rule by a particular racial group, are rule based on a particular personal characteristic and are analogous to patriarchy--not democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy.

2. I largely concede this point.

3. Patriarchy is not a basic form of government discussed by the Greeks. You cannot simply isolate a quote from Aristotle, highlight the word "MEN", and then claim that as proof; nor can you "imply" that meaning from Aristole's words. That is original research. If you find a reliable source that directly equates the term patriarchy with oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy in Greek philosophy, which are explicitly referenced as basic forms of government in Greek philosophy, then please reference it.

5. and 6. You point out that patriarchy is a "hybrid" form of government. This assertion further supports the view that it is not a basic form of government that democracy should be contrasted against. You recognize that explicitly in your 5th point, and later refer to the term "patriarchal democracy." We do not list every other conceivable hybrid in the article, even common ones such "Christian democracy" or "white democracy," and we should not highlight patriarchy any more than these others--and certainly not if it will be characterized as a basic form of government to contrast democracy against.

Finally, if you would like to add more information into the article about women's suffrage elsewhere in the article with appropriate sources, that's great, but that is outside the scope of this particular conversation. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to accuse anyone of accusing me of female bias. I meant to identify a trend on wikipedia and it was my hope to nip it in the bud here before it reared it's ugly head. I had reason to believe it might, as you used the qualifier "feminists argue" in one of your proofs which showed elements of both "ad hominem" and "appeal to authority" fallacies of bad faith argumentation that usually, in my experience, precede an accusation of female bias on my part in discussions such as this. I apologize if I was unnecessarily hypervigilant and do wish to assume good faith. :)

This fascinating, timely and complex debate seems to have multiple points of contention, which I have attempted to summarize:

- Is patriarchy a form of government? (you have conceded this, I believe)

- Is patriarchy a BASIC form of government?

- Are basic forms of government by definition mutually exclusive or can they be blended and, if so, how do we define that? "hybrid" (my term) "mix" (the current term used in the article), or something else?

- Was patriarchy part of the philosophical discussions of the ancient Greeks in particular regarding the distribution of power in a society?

- Is patriarchy a type of oligarchy and, if so, how can oligarchy be in "opposition" to democracy, since democracies were (and in some cases still are) patriarchies?

- Is patriarchy analogous to anything else discussed in Greek philosophy that would have to be included as well, so as not to give "undue weight" to patriarchy?

- The relevance of qualitative vs. quantitative descriptors for classes of ruling elites

Whew! (deep breath…)

We have agreed that patriarchy is, in fact, a form of government.

Is patriarchy a BASIC form of government? There is no other form of government more basic than patriarchy in the history of the world. If government is "the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed," there has been no organizing principle so universal as the system of distributing power along the lines of biological sex. It is the one element of organization that has, in practice, existed through culture, time, ethnicity, religion, race, economics, etc. Through democracies, oligarchies, monarchies and more, it has been the organizing principle that has been consistent in nearly all, up until less than a century ago. As I said before, it's easy (if fallacious) for some political theorists to make the mistake of missing this point because patriarchy is so universal, that it becomes invisible (yes, I can cite sources for this phenomenon of the invisibility of masculinity in philosophical discussions of all sorts). But it is a universal and basic principle of ruling organization, therefore government. Dividing power along biological sex was not an "afterthought" or "subtype" or "characteristic." It was and is so basic, it has been the foundational "given" of power distribution--usually fallaciously justified ipso facto as being self-evident by "nature" as with Aristotle (see below)--upon which the houses of democracy, oligarchy and monarchy were built. Ipso facto arguments still result in factos, lol, like the very real distribution of power that disempowered and disenfranchised over half the adult human population for nearly all of the history of the ancient and modern world. Patriarchy's reality, influence and consequences are the single most vast of any principle of organization of power ever known. Please provide any contrary evidence to this statement if you disagree.

Regarding the above, if I have to cite sources for my statements on the definition, reality and influence of patriarchy, than this article must also cite sources for oligarchy, monarchy, etc. and not just reference the wikipedia articles on these subjects, since you deleted my edit arguing that referencing the wikipedia article on patriarchy was not a sufficient source. As I said in my original edit, requesting me to cite sources for patriarchy is a biased standard and suggests a lack of good faith editing, as the other forms of government mentioned are not sourced outside of wikipedia. I believe they are not cited with sources because it is assumed that their definitions and importance are self-evident. Well, I believe the same is true of patriarchy, even more so.

Are basic forms of government by definition mutually exclusive or can they be blended and, if so, how do we define that? "hybrid" (my term) "mix" (the current term used in the article), or something else? You are confusing the concept of forms being mutually exclusive with the characteristic of being basic. Something does not have to be mutually exclusive (i.e. democracy, oligarchy, monarchy) to be basic. It also does not have to be independent to be basic. Basic elements can combine…that's what I'm referring to as a "hybrid", and, in this case, patriarchy is a hybrid element, but still basic. Even basic forms that appear mutually exclusive by definition have been combined in reality. This is not an original argument, it has been made by political scholars and in fact, is put forward in the same paragraph in this article that is in question when it refers to a "mix of elements" in modern governments. I simply used the word "hybrid" instead of "mix" as I think it's a more accurate term.

Was patriarchy part of the philosophical discussions of the ancient Greeks in particular? You suggested that I am making an "original" argument here and commented that I had erred in simply noting the use of the word "MEN' to make an argument and that I should provide sources for such a claim. I quite agree with you. Which is why, in my original edit, I added a source which summarized Aristotle's explicit writings on patriarchy in Book One of "Politics." My error, if any, was not that I did not cite sources for my argument but that I had assumed good faith on your part that you had read my cited sources before deleting my edit. Also, since you pointed to Aristotle's "Politics" as a source for your own argument, I also (possibly incorrectly) assumed that you had read the document, in which Aristotle goes into great detail to describe why men should rule over women (patriarchy). Nonetheless, as you requested, here are the original, applicable quotes of Aristotle in Book One of "Politics"…

"We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be attained about each one of them."

"Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state we must speak of the management of the household. "

"As Homer says: "Each one gives law to his children and to his wives." "

"Now we should begin by examining everything in its fewest possible elements; and the first and fewest possible parts of a family are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children."

"For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female,"

"When one rules and the other is ruled we endeavor to create a difference of outward forms and names and titles of respect...The relation of the male to the female is of this kind..."

"Clearly, then, moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying."

Is patriarchy a type of oligarchy and, if so, how can oligarchy be in "opposition" to democracy, since democracies were patriarchies? Again, obviously the Greeks did not think patriarchy was a type of oligarchy, as they did not see their society as an oligarchy and Aristotle is clearly defending patriarchy here. If patriarchy is a type of oligarchy, then this article must reflect that and call Athens (and early America and Egypt today) an oligarchy or at least an oligarchic democracy, which means oligarchy and democracy cannot be mutually exclusive, so oligarchy is therefore not "in opposition" to democracy, as this article claims. I have made this core point twice and you have not yet addressed it. Please do.

Is patriarchy analogous to anything else discussed in Greek philosophy that would have to be included as well, so as not to give "undue weight" to patriarchy? Yes, Aristotle spoke of the master/slave and father/child ruling authority derived from "nature" as well as the male/female dynamic. I would not be opposed to including a reference to those in addition to patriarchy. I guess we do have a term to describe the master/slave power dynamic, we call that "slavery." And we do have a word for "rule of the father" it's...patriarchy.

The relevance of qualitative vs. quantitative descriptors for classes of ruling elites. This is perhaps the most subtle of the arguments here. I would argue that patriarchy is distinctive both qualitatively and quantitatively for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, it is a "quality" (biological sex) but its large number (nearly half the adult population) makes it unique from the qualitative oligarchies such as those based on religious or labor classification. Oligarchy in this very article is defined as "rule of the few" and men cannot possibly be described as "few." So, yes, the numbers are relevant to assigning a unique category to patriarchy.

Also, the qualifier of sex is distinct here from religious ("Christian) or racial ("white") because these qualifiers were not singled out as elemental to the justification for power distribution in the discussions of Aristotle, although one could argue that race is included in his master/slave argument, which I have already conceded is relevant.

In sum, the wikipedia article on types of governments lists dozens of names for different permutations of governmental organization. The debate here is why patriarchy should be elevated to this discussion in relevance and importance alongside oligarchy and monarchy. When discussing Athenian political philosophy, a discussion of patriarchy is relevant because they acknowledged it in both theory and practice. When discussing democracy, a discussion of patriarchy is relevant because not including it implies that "democracies" were "rule of the people" which they were not. They were rule of less than half the people. Further, can you show examples of blended oligarchic democracies combining the type of oligarchies that you believe are analagous to patriarchy that have been as historically pervasive as the hybrid of patriarchy and democracy? If not, then discussing patriarchy here is, in fact, giving it its "due weight."

Common Ground: Patriarchy was a part of the philosophical discussion, organization of government and consequent power distribution of all democratic societies and its absence in this article is glaring. I am willing to say that democracy and oligarchy and monarchy are usually cited as a group of governmental systems contrasting each other by number, but we need to find a way to reference patriarchy in this discussion. I am open to suggestions that are agreeable to you.

Finally, I do intend to add the history of women's suffrage to this article. I was introducing the idea in the talk section first as a heads up and also because it's inexplicable exclusion suggests a possible lack of consciousness on the part of the editors of this article on the relevance of biological sex to a discussion of the history and definition of democracy which I am attempting to rectify. :)

Thank you again for your comments and your time. Amyluna13 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)