Adsactly Education - 21st Century Democracy
Adsactly Education: 21st Century Democracy
“Democracy can not consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and are managed by rich landowners and professional politicians”
Che Guevara 1961
Two Forms Of Democracy
At it’s essence there are just two forms of Democracy. Direct Democracy where every citizen votes on every decision the government makes and Representative Democracy where elected citizens represent the electorate in a centralized government.
Most modern Democracies use a combination of the two. Almost all Democracies use some form of initiative or referendum to get the citizens direct vote on certain matters.
Direct Democracy
Direct Democracy is characterized by the electorate directly in control of the government. Citizens participate in face to face meetings to make binding decisions for the elected officials. Those include recall elections for the officials and suing the officials for breach of (campaign) promises.
The best known and highest functioning Direct Democracies are in Switzerland. Two Cantons use it exclusively and the entire country uses forms of Direct Democracy. In Switzerland there is no voter registration. Every citizen gets an election packet and casts his or her vote on the appointed day, generally 4 times per year. Decisions made by the electorate are binding on the officials of government.
Representative Democracy
Representative Democracy occurs when the citizens elect fellow citizens to represent them in the Government. Representatives are can be elected by majority or plurality of the citizens. If the Head of State is also elected it is called a Presidential Republic. If the Head of State is picked by the (majority) representatives it is called a Parliamentary Republic.
Almost all Representative Democracies use some items from Direct Democracy, namely referendums, initiatives and recall elections. These items provide for direct involvement of the citizens giving direct orders to the government, while still under the representative banner.
In any Representative Democracy the question is often asked about the percentage of citizens participating in any given election. Voter apathy, voter requirements and availability of polling places have a direct impact on that percentage.
Parliamentary Democracy
Parliamentary Democracy is a system where the citizens elect representatives to govern them in a Parliament which is responsible for passing laws and budgets. The government is then formed by the political party that ‘won’ the election. The government stays in power for a specific amount of time, or until the ruling party no longer controls a majority in the Parliament.
Parliamentary Democracies are generally headed by a Prime Minister who is selected from the majority party and serves at the whim of the Parliament which means that a simple majority vote of ‘no confidence’ from the Parliament is enough to dismiss the PM and cause new elections. In some countries the PM can also call for elections at any time to solidify power. Others have ‘hard scheduled’ elections and will live with a ‘minority government’ after a vote of no confidence until the next scheduled election.
Presidential Democracy
In this system not only are the lawmakers elected by the population but the head of state is also an elected office generally called President. The President has direct control of his cabinet and diplomats with the ability to appoint and dismiss. The President is the head of state and head of the Executive branch of government.
In a Presidential Democracy neither the President or the Legislators can be easily removed from office, which lends itself to gridlock when the executive is from one party and the legislature is controlled by another.
There is a little used hybrid system where the President (Executive) and a Prime Minister (Head of State) are both elected offices.
Semi Direct Democracy
This type of Democracy features some forms of Representative and some of Direct, most usually by means of referendum and initiative. Switzerland uses this form and many of the states in the US use initiative and referendum to take direct input from the voters.
In the US there is no Direct Democracy at the Federal level, but much of the population uses initiative and referendum at the State, County and Municipal level. In New England the Town Meeting form of direct democracy is still in use successfully. Direct input from citizens with voting on the issues presented is quite common there.
Variations on the Theme
Constitutional Monarchy
Many countries didn’t overthrow their monarchy, but gave them increasingly limited roles in governing the country. England passed the Bill of Rights in 1689 which marked the beginning of the end of the rule of the Monarch. Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Japan, and others have kept the Monarch as a ceremonial position. Many of these countries also had a powerful upper chamber of the Legislature populated by near royalty but these have either been made ceremonial or switched to elected positions.
Republic
Per the example of the United States in 1789 a Republic elects the legislature and the Chief Executive (President). Hallmarks of a Republic today include limited terms for the President and direct election of both houses of the Legislature.
Some legislative districts use a ‘proportional’ voting system where voters choose two or three legislative seats in the same ballot. The winners have to have a certain percentage of the vote to be seated. If not enough candidates make that percentage the remaining candidates will square off in a runoff election with the same rules for the remaining seat(s).
Liberal Democracy
Liberal Democracy is a variation of Representative Democracy that has constitutionally protected rights of individuals to prevent the majority from infringing on those rights or the rights of the minority. Liberal Democracy can be either a Constitutional Monarchy or a Republic, the key is the protection of the minority. When the US ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 it was not a Liberal Democracy as the Bill did not apply to women, slaves or natives.
The rest of this list should be considered mainly a theoretical exercise.
Socialist or Social Democracy
At some level, most Socialist governments make use of democratic principles. Though ‘free and fair’ elections might be a joke, many Socialist governments have ‘worker’s councils’ or ‘collectives’ to take care of mainly local concerns. China and Vietnam might fit this category but are usually considered State Capitalists.
Anarchist
Anarchists can’t decide among themselves whether Democracy is tyrannical by nature or not. It is hard to take this faction seriously.
Sortition
Sortition requires government functionaries to be chosen randomly. The theory holds that random selection would represent not only the majority but also the minority. It also presumes that a randomly chosen citizen would be more honorable and trustworthy than elected officials.
These three (there are many more) theoretical models have never been tried in real world situations. Most have glaring holes or need a really specific set of circumstances which almost never exist in real life.
This concludes the portion on democracy. The last article of this series will deal with the marriage between Capitalism and Democracy. I thank you for staying with it thus far.
I would like to know your thoughts on the state of Democracy in the 21st Century. Does it still work as intended? Can it/Will it correct itself? Is there hope or despair on the horizon?
Words and ideas are mine. I used this Wikipedia Page for historical perspective and accuracy. In this article I specifically stayed mostly with the terms and titles listed here for clarity and order.
Authored by: @bigtom13
Click on the coin to join our Discord Chat
Witness proposal is here:
Go To Steem Witness Page
In the bottom of the page type: adsactly-witness and press vote.
Use small letters and no "@" sign. Or, click here to vote directly!
Thank you!
The most all inclusive meaning of Democracy by Lincoln "Administration of the general population, by the general population, for the general population" now just stay as a hypothetical idea. Maybe an idea of fantasy or even deliberation. One may surmise that I am being extraordinary however or dissect the circumstance.
Majority rules system these days is about insignificant decision. Which implies that out of ten conceivable applicants you will presumably like none of them and at last you'll vote in favor of the one that you despise the minimum. On the off chance that this isn't a depravity of an initially amiable idea then I don't recognize what it is.
Free and fair elections do not necessarily translate into 'good and qualified' candidates. It is one of the problems facing democracy today.
For all intense purposes democracy is a great thing. Where we fail for the most part is in its distribution of authority. Unfortunately authority is being compiled to far up the ladder. In the US, the federal government was appointed a total of only four responsibilities. 1) Defend Constitutional Rights 2) Defend our shores and borders 3) Develop a form of currency 4) Deliver the mail. Unfortunately power and its authority has continually been excerpted from the States. Local governance should be given to the locally elected. Laws good for Texas are not necessarily a good fit for those in California. One size does not fit all. And it's proof once more that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The US Government has grown and snowballed particularly since the Civil War. The discovery that Congress could suspend the rule of law was an unhappy day for our nation. Since then they have taken more and more authority on themselves.
Thanks for a well thought comment.
The most universal definition of Democracy by Lincoln "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" now only remain as a theoretical concept. Perhaps a concept of myth or even abstraction. One might think that I am being extreme but lest analyze the situation.
Democracy nowadays is about minimal choice. Which means that out of ten possible candidates you will probably like none of them and in the end you'll vote for the one that you dislike the least. If this is not a perversion of an originally benign concept then I don't know what it is.
Uh, yeah. I will tell you for an absolute fact that the last presidential candidate that I voted FOR was Ronald Reagan. Every single vote since then has been for the candidate I think will do the least damage.
Wow that's a long time to go without voting. I am not the one to say that you should vote or not because we all recognize the fact the voting these days is a mere illusion of choices ranging from bad to worse.
Sorry. I said that poorly. Ronnie was the last candidate that I liked. Every election since then I voted for the candidate that I thought would do the least damage. Not that I liked them.
I have only missed two local referendum votes since 1970 when I became eligible to vote. I take it as a right and a responsibility.
Hi @adsactly Excellent post.
Compared to dictatorships, oligarchies, monarchies and aristocracies, in which the people have little or no say in who is elected and how the government is run, a democracy is often said to be the most challenging form of government, as input from those representing citizens determines the direction of the country. The basic definition of democracy in its purest form comes from the Greek language: The term means “rule by the people.” But democracy is defined in many ways — a fact that has caused much disagreement among those leading various democracies as to how best to run one.
The Greeks and Romans established the precursors to today’s modern democracy. The three main branches of Athenian democracy were the Assembly of the Demos, the Council of 500 and the People’s Court. Assembly and the Council were responsible for legislation, along with ad hoc boards of “lawmakers.”
In the 1790s to 1820s, Jeffersonian democracy was one of two philosophies of governing to dominate the U.S. political scene.
What is the “end” of political governance? Thomas Jefferson probably defined it best for the modern West: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and governments that prove to be destructive to such ends must be overthrown.
This Jeffersonian articulation of the end of governance was the culmination of cultural and religious developments unique to the West. Such developments placed the individual at the center of the universe as the basic and sovereign unit of human society. However, they did not occur in non-Western societies and their resulting political philosophy is, therefore, not universal.
Democracy has unquestionably lost its global momentum. According to Freedom House, there are only a handful more electoral democracies in the world today than there were at the start of this century. Dozens of newer democracies in the developing world are struggling to put down roots, and many older democracies including, of course, the United States are troubled. The theory that democratic transitions naturally move in a positive direction and that established democracies don’t tumble backward no longer holds water.
Have a wonderful Thursday
I wish you good health, happiness and prosperity
A hug
I really hope that the theory that democracies that have all the pillars necessary in place are self correcting. As time goes on I find that hope to be dimming.
I think all the democracies in the world face a pressure that is much more than they ever have. I am still hopeful that they can be saved, but am certainly not certain that it will be so.
Hi @bigtom13 I think we need to recognize that the world is diverse, and there will be diverse models of governance around the world. Some of them will be more liberal and more democratic. Some of them will be more illiberal. Some of them may be authoritarian for a period of time. What caused the collapse of the Soviet Union was the idea that socialism was built on “scientific foundations” laid down by Marx and Engels and was ready to be used by everyone around this world. And when this didn’t happen, people started having doubts.
I think we’re seeing sustained and rather astonishing demand for democracy all over the world.
Democracy should be a verb, and not a noun. Democracy isn't this thing that gets created once and that’s it. All of us have to be actively engaged.
Have a nice Thursday
A hug
I like that. Democracy should be a verb. An ever changing, ever evolving action.
Hi @bigtom13 That's right!!
A constitutional democracy is not a kingdom, aristocracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, autocracy, theocracy, etc. Knowing what it is not is arguably part-way to knowing what it is.
Constitutional democracy is a transcendent Idea deduced over thousands of years of countless questions, not all of them thoughtful, and even more answers, not all of them truthful. Indeed, this Idea denotes or points to or "calls into being" a sort of learning organism that facilitates evolving awareness of achievable goals distinguishing gradations of plausible from implausible, thoughtful from thoughtless, likely from unlikely, just from unjust. Constitutional democracy learns from many sources, including its mistakes, including (perhaps) yours and mine.
The origins and evolution of the transcendent Idea of constitutional democracy as an embodiment of Ordered Liberty and the Rule of Law is a fascinating and instructive story in its own right.
I hope you have a happy day.
A hug
I live in a country where Representative Democracy is the status quo. I've seen how this leads to such corruption and political lobbying, that I've almost lost trust in the model. However, the model can work, but require strict laws to limit terms in parliament and lobbying.
My personal feeling (having a studied opinion as a scholar of history) is that when an autocracy functions with benevolence for the people it's much more effective than a democracy, but a great potential always exist for it to become tyrannical. Ultimate power corrupts ultimately. I think the founding fathers of the US were able to find the perfect balance between empowering the people and giving the government authority, while maintaining an effective governing system. Laws need to be re-introduced to prevent the same personalities to dominate the political landscape in the US (John McCain as one example).
For those interested in BTC TA, come visit. And @adsactly thanks for the fascinating post. Cheers.
I'm a big fan of term limits. The state where I lived in 1992 passed a sweeping term limits law. The state was sued by a coalition that was led by the Speaker of the House who was a congressman from that state. The Supreme Court sided with the Speaker and term limits went away. A sad thing in my opinion.
Excellent post @adsactly, when reading your text I think about the name that I should put to the democracy of my country Venezuela, this is how should I say the form of government that my country handles? The current rulers say that democracy and participation are protagonists according to them where the greatest power is the people, the people are the ones who govern, but the reality is different, we have a centralist and authoritarian government, where a few control all public powers and we also have a parliamentary government that opposes the government, but this was neutralized by the mafias that control the country. The so-called revolutionaries are nothing more than a copy of Fidel and Che Guevara. If it is true that here there are elections every time but I think it is a trap of the government in office. Reading your publication I conclude that the form of government that prevails in Venezuela is Centralized Capitalist although they call it Socialism
The Venezuelan parliament has another parallel parliament because the minority wanted it that way, the little reds who, with a trap and conchupancia with the electoral power they control, placed the National Constituent Assembly to dictate laws that pleased them. In my country there is no democracy, here there is a dictatorship disguised as democracy with a people kneeling before a government that every day worsens their quality of life.
Once again thank you friend @adsactly for your information is an open door for all of us to express ideas and opinions with freedom and respect
From all I've heard and all I've read and all that people inside and outside Venezuela have told me, I certainly would not judge it to be a democracy. For one thing, free and fair elections are not held, which precludes any country from being a democracy.
I do, however, have hopes that democracy will return to Venezuela.
A day not far away Venezuela will be free
Democracy itself is an evolutionary process that is controlled by the people, and as such has no major problems so long as the people are well informed. This is not a "hard-wired" or stagnate process that must be defined by past attempts at democracy. The only requirement is that the people are in charge and majority opinion decides at least the major rules. If the people are not in charge, it is not democracy!
It requires a high level of civil society to function.
If the society is 70% illiterate, it doesn't work. (Afghanistan)
If the society is full of religious fanaticism, it doesn't work. (Iraq)
If the country does not have governing expertise, it doesn't work. (most of the former colonial countries in Africa)
If the country is in the middle of a civil war, you have to be a lunatic to think democracy will work. (Libya)
Unfortunately most of the western countries appear to be lunatics in this regard.
Yes to all of the above. Afghanistan: Informed electorate. Iraq: Minority rights. Colonial Africa: May come with experience, we are seeing signs of Democracy in many countries. Lybia: The United States didn't have a democracy during the Civil War, how can we expect Libya to?
Thanks for a really well thought reply.
The ideal of democracy is a form of government which is by the people, for the people, of the people. But these days democratic values are being kept aside and the people's representatives are behaving like some middle age feudal lords.
One of the most important aspects of democracy is a powerful opposition. But I am seeing (generally in the whole world and particularly in India) that people are becoming confused after witnessing the behavior of the opposition parties. Apparently these days there remain no difference between the ruling party and the opposition party because their policies are the same, their thinking is the same and even the leaders are the same. Father is in ruling party while son is in the opposition party. Only a few families are running the country. One person changes parties as we change our clothes. Hence, opposition has remained just for the sake of continuity. Governments all over the world are just letting the opposition to survive so that they may not be called tyrants.
Governments are steps that are benefiting elite class only. They formed their policies which suit corporate sector only. People are being forced to evacuate their land which ultimately goes to the rich.
Montesquieu had proposed the system of separation of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. But our modern democracy has made it impossible for a poor person to get justice because whole judicial system is run by powerful advocates and lawyers whose fee cannot be afford by the poor. I have seen many examples in my own country that poor persons were jailed just for petty things for many years just because no one was there to get the bail for them, while rich were untouched by the law even after committing big crimes.
Is this the real form of a democratic system? I think it is not democracy. It is something malicious in the name of democracy.
The loyal opposition is a key component of any democracy. If, in fact, there is no loyal opposition then the very premise of democracy is in doubt. A single party democracy is not very likely.
I agree. Actually interests of politicians are the same. They are our rulers, though we think them as our representatives. They don't take any step that may make politicians responsible for their deeds.
@adsactly
When discussing freedom in this sense, I agree. It is when we discuss social freedom, the limitations placed on us not only by nature, those we meet during interactions and ourselves, but those placed on us with little input or consideration for our wishes by the masses(mob rule) or the 'rulers' that I believe that 'limitations' being good isn't so true.
One of the known problems with democracy is that the 'minority' has a chance to be trampled by the majority. It's why 'equal opportunity under the law' is such an important concept to democracy.
Well said @adsactly
Now a days democracy is controlled by landLords and moneymen , as a result it's corrupting day by day . Not all the people has even political and constitutional knowledges , but they occupying the chairs of the country.
I agree with you and I fear the outcome that could lead to.