Democracy has existed for a long time, but was not always the optimal governmental system for many

Collapse of fascism and communism ---> democracy on the rise

On every continent now

Many different forms of democracy

What is Democracy?

Democracy: political power exercised either directly or indirectly through participation, competition, and liberty

Democracy consists of four basic elements:

I want to begin with an overview of what democracy is. We can think of democracy as a system of government with four key elements:

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens

I. Democracy as a Political System of Competition for Power

Democracy is a means for the people to choose their leaders and to hold their leaders accountable for their policies and their conduct in office.

The people decide who will represent them in parliament, and who will head the government at the national and local levels. They do so by choosing between competing parties in regular, free and fair elections.

Government is based on the consent of the governed.

In a democracy, the people are sovereign—they are the highest form of political authority.

Power flows from the people to the leaders of government, who hold power only temporarily.

Laws and policies require majority support in parliament, but the rights of minorities are protected in various ways.

The people are free to criticize their elected leaders and representatives, and to observe how they conduct the business of government.

Elected representatives at the national and local levels should listen to the people and respond to their needs and suggestions.

Elections have to occur at regular intervals, as prescribed by law. Those in power cannot extend their terms in office without asking for the consent of the people again in an election.

For elections to be free and fair, they have to be administered by a neutral, fair, and professional body that treats all political parties and candidates equally.

All parties and candidates must have the right to campaign freely, to present their proposals to the voters both directly and through the mass media.

Voters must be able to vote in secret, free of intimidation and violence.

Independent observers must be able to observe the voting and the vote counting to ensure that the process is free of corruption, intimidation, and fraud.

There needs to be some impartial and independent tribunal to resolve any disputes about the election results.

This is why it takes a lot of time to organize a good, democratic election.

Any country can hold an election, but for an election to be free and fair requires a lot of organization, preparation, and training of political parties, electoral officials, and civil society organizations who monitor the process.

II. Participation: The Role of the Citizen in A Democracy

The key role of citizens in a democracy is to participate in public life.

Citizens have an obligation to become informed about public issues, to watch carefully how their political leaders and representatives use their powers, and to express their own opinions and interests.

Voting in elections is another important civic duty of all citizens.

But to vote wisely, each citizen should listen to the views of the different parties and candidates, and then make his or her own decision on whom to support.

Participation can also involve campaigning for a political party or candidate, standing as a candidate for political office, debating public issues, attending community meetingsand membership civic meetings, bably best placed in Article 5 on the Judicial Authority.materials are.pecified.il. ency Council, petitioning the government, and even protesting.

A vital form of participation comes through active membership in independent, non-governmental organizations, what we call "civil society."

These organizations represent a variety of interests and beliefs: farmers, workers, doctors, teachers, business owners, religious believers, women, students, human rights activists.

It is important that women participate fully both in politics and in civil society.

This requires efforts by civil society organizations to educate women about their democratic rights and responsibilities, improve their political skills, represent their common interests, and involve them in political life.

In a democracy, participation in civic groups should be voluntary. No one should be forced to join an organization against their will.

Political parties are vital organizations in a democracy, and democracy is stronger when citizens become active members of political parties.

However, no one should support a political party because he is pressured or threatened by others. In a democracy, citizens are free to choose which party to support.

Democracy depends on citizen participation in all these ways. But participation must be peaceful, respectful of the law, and tolerant of the different views of other groups and individuals.

III. The Rights of Citizens in a Democracy

In a democracy, every citizen has certain basic rights that the state cannot take away from them.

These rights are guaranteed under international law.

You have the right to have your own beliefs, and to say and write what you think.

No one can tell you what you must think, believe, and say or not say.

There is freedom of religion. Everyone is free to choose their own religion and to worship and practice their religion as they see fit.

Every individual has the right to enjoy their own culture, along with other members of their group, even if their group is a minority.

There is freedom and pluralism in the mass media.

You can choose between different sources of news and opinion to read in the newspapers, to hear on the radio, and to watch on television.

You have the right to associate with other people, and to form and join organizations of your own choice, including trade unions.

You are free to move about the country, and if you wish, to leave the country.

You have the right to assemble freely, and to protest government actions.

However, everyone has an obligation to exercise these rights peacefully, with respect for the law and for the rights of others.

IV. The Rule of Law

Democracy is a system of rule by laws, not by individuals.

In a democracy, the rule of law protects the rights of citizens, maintains order, and limits the power of government.

All citizens are equal under the law. No one may be discriminated against on the basis of their race, religion, ethnic group, or gender.

No one may be arrested, imprisoned, or exiled arbitrarily.

If you are detained, you have the right to know the charges against you, and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law.

Anyone charged with a crime has the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial by an impartial court.

No one may be taxed or prosecuted except by a law established in advance.

No one is above the law, not even a king or an elected president.

The law is fairly, impartially, and consistently enforced, by courts that are independent of the other branches of government.

Torture and cruel and inhumane treatment are absolutely forbidden.

The rule of law places limits on the power of government. No government official may violate these limits.

No ruler, minister, or political party can tell a judge how to decide a case.

Office holders cannot use their power to enrich themselves. Independent courts and commissions punish corruption, no matter who is guilty.

V. The Limits and Requirements for Democracy

If democracy is to work, citizens must not only participate and exercise their rights. They must also observe certain principles and rules of democratic conduct.

People must respect the law and reject violence. Nothing ever justifies using violence against your political opponents, just because you disagree with them.

Every citizen must respect the rights of his or her fellow citizens, and their dignity as human beings.

No one should denounce a political opponent as evil and illegitimate, just because they have different views.

People should question the decisions of the government, but not reject the government's authority.

Every group has the right to practice its culture and to have some control over its own affairs, but each group should accept that it is a part of a democratic state.

When you express your opinions, you should also listen to the views of other people, even people you disagree with. Everyone has a right to be heard.

Don't be so convinced of the rightness of your views that you refuse to see any merit in another position. Consider different interests and points of view.

When you make demands, you should understand that in a democracy, it is impossible for everyone to achieve everything they want.

Democracy requires compromise. Groups with different interests and opinions must be willing to sit down with one another and negotiate.

In a democracy, one group does not always win everything it wants. Different combinations of groups win on different issues. Over time, everyone wins something.

If one group is always excluded and fails to be heard, it may turn against democracy in anger and frustration.

Everyone who is willing to participate peacefully and respect the rights of others should have some say in the way the country is governed.

WHAT DEMOCRACY IS NOT

Democracy is not absolute freedom for the individual, for that is anarchy.

Democracy is not the right of a few oligarchs to steal from the state, nor for the tax police to extort money from your bank accounts and businesses, for that is corrupt and criminal tyranny.

Democracy is not the use of "administrative means," including unnecessary inspections and judicial delays, to control independent media, political parties, and private organizations.

Democracy cannot tolerate officials demanding bribes, for that destroys the respect that people should have for their government.

Origins of democracy

(Athenian) Greek direct democracy - allowed public to participate directly in the affairs of government, choosing policies and making governing decisions

However - wasn't perfect- excluded women, children, slaves

With Roman Empire came advent of INDIRECT DEMOCRACY

Also - Republicanism - emphasizes separation of powers within a state and the representation of the public through elected officials

Early Roman republicanism just reinforced elitism - the continuing power of the upper classes

But as political rights grew to expand to include other people, republicanism incorporated them too

First democracies evolved in Europe - because nation-states formed there first

Development of English Democracy

1066

Jan 6: Edward the Confessor dies – Harold II reigned for 9 months

Sep 25: Battle of Stamford Bridge: Harold II defeats Norwegian invasion

Oct 14: Invasion of England by Duke William of Normandy – Battle of Hastings

Dec 25: William crowned King of England at Westminster

1086

Completion of Domesday Book - Commissioned by William the Conqueror, great land survey, showed the extent of the taxes he could raise

c1100

First record of football in England

1166

Establishment of trial by jury

1215

Jun 15: Magna Carta sealed at Runnymede by King John

Magna Carta: Great Charter of English liberty

limited the power of the English monarchs

no absolute rule

King has to respect certain legal procedures

1265 - Beginning of English parliament

1326 - First Scottish Parliament

1628 - Petition of Right - demanded the king do something about: forced loans, arbitrary arrest, arbitrary interference with property rights, and imposition of martial law. Civil Law soon followed

1679 Habeas Corpus Act - guaranteed that a person arrested by authorities MUST be brought to stand trial so the legality of the detention can be determined

1689 - English Bill of Rights

addresses only the rights of Parliamentarians sitting in Parliament as against the Crown

occurred after Glorious Revolution and Oliver Cromwell

freedom from excessive taxation, from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom to elect Parliament without monarch's interference

INSTITUTIONALIZING DEMOCRACY/ CONSOLIDATING DEMOCRACY

How do we make democracy last?

liberal democracies create a rule of law: the public and those in power respect and abide by the rules and norms of the democratic regime

however, very hard to implement, has to evolve over years

VOTING AND ELECTIONS

True democracies have UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE - in which all adults over a certain age have the right to vote

democracies adopted these measures at different times - Australia in the 1960s, US women in 1920

Voting is not the only way to be involved however - can participate in referenda (popular in CA), initiatives, and PLEBISCITES - nonbinding vote where citizens express an opinion on a proposal

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS -

FIRST PAST THE POST - therefore, whoever gets the MOST votes, wins the district

based on the idea of SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS

only ONE person can represent the district

so, up to 49% of the people don't have to vote for the winning candidate

FPTP can benefit large parties while smaller parties often don't benefit

Define plurality - largest share of the total - so say, party A wins 35%, party B 15%, c, 20%, D 30% -- A wins the plurality

FPTP benefits those parties that have strong constituencies, while those parties which may have popular support, but spread AROUND the country, will always lose

Duverger's law --> guarantees an outcome of 2 parties, or a 2-party system

voters are unwilling to "waste" votes on a 3rd party

a 3rd party CAN push its way in...but only at the expense of another party

ex: UK Labour Party outdid the Liberal Party

Opposite of FPTP --- Proportional Representation

Believes the percentage of votes for a party should result in a percentage of seats for that party

doesn't want votes to be wasted

wants everyone's voice to be heard

has MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICTS - so more than ONE person will represent a constitutency

so if 35% of the votes goes to one party - party should have 35% of the seats

this actually happens in the South African National Assembly

Usually works on a party-list system

Parties draw up a LIST, and fill the available seats they are awarded with the people on the list

So parties have tremendous power in determining who gets to sit in government

The effects of PR:

Voters are more likely to vote for smaller parties, because it won't be a "wasted" vote

PR can be argued to better represent the people - although there are problems with this. it does waste fewer votes, and allows for more parties

but - these parties might be very narrow and have very little voter appeal, but might have more of a say in determining national politics

also, PR allows far-right and discriminatory parties to gain seats (Le Front National, BNP)

Benefits to FPTP:

-- feel more connected to government, because they choose the individuals who take office

--increases accountability to not work from a list

-- no fringe parties dominating policy

Some states use a MIXED SYSTEM - combines both FPTP and PR

voters have two choices - select both a party (PR) and a single candidate (FPTP)

so you can split your choice, and almost vote twice

Other ways of involvement:

Referenda:

allows a public vote on a national policy issue

very popular in CA: Proposition 13 - froze property taxes (1979)

Quebec independence

only government has the power to call a referendum

Initiative

can be called by the public

must propose an initiative, collect signatures, if they succeed, government must call referendum

but, governments do not HAVE to implement policies suggested by initiatives/referendum

Plebiscite - nonbinding votes (example, referendum)

More of a polling device to see how the country feels on a certain pressing issue

Does this make nation more democratic? Can people really decide which national policies to adopt?

POLITICAL PARTIES AND SEPARATION OF POWERS

Political Parties:

very organized, most powerful, seemingly inevitable

Why do we have them?

parties bring together diverse groups of people and ideas

helps establish majority rule (otherwise, politics would be too fragmented)

yet, can allow for differences within the party, which prevents a tyranny of the majority from occurring

Parties also allow politicians to be held ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS - therefore, if politicians fail the general public, their party will suffer for it

encourage competition, and prevent domination by one group

SEPARATION OF POWERS:

giving specific branches to check the political power of the other branches

executive, legislative, judiciary

each has its own base of authority - constitution, regime, respect

Executives:

Head of state - symbolic head of government, figurehead, monarch, honorary president (Germany)

Head of government - deals with tasks of running the state

we'll talk about presidentialism vs parliamentarism after we're done

Legislatures: Bicameral vs Unicameral

Bicameral: 2 hourses

Unicameral: 1 house

Legislature: charged with making laws

Bicameral: England - House of Commons/House of Lords

House of Commons: bills originate here

Commons is now supreme house (wasn't always the case though)

Doesn't need consent of the Lords

Lords may not delay a money bill for more than one month

only the commons can introduce a bill on taxation

House of Lords: under Parliament Acts, very difficult to reject bills

House of Lords can't seek to delay or oppose legislation that is a part of the Government's manifesto, or platform

Within House of Lords, there are Law Lords, which function as a form of Supreme Court for English law (and Wales and Northern Ireland)

can also try impeachments

However, Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 - which we'll discuss in greater detail tomorrow - means there will be a separate and formal Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Another form of bicameralism originated as a reflection of FEDERALISM: US MODEL

HoR - Based on population

Senate - 2 per state

So, there's a balance of power that's achieved through bicameralism

Bicameralism is good because it prevents crazy bills from passing too quickly - but might result in slowing down the system TOO much

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS

Constitutional court - highest judicial body that rules on the constitutionality of the laws and other government actions

growth in judicial power in the 20th century

courts are now seen as the optimal agents to prevent against abuse of the democratic system

but still controversial - because justices are unelected, and people warn against "judicial activism" - making law from the bench instead of interpreting the law

more likely to be heard from conservatives than liberals

constitutional courts - have been instrumental in defending the democratic principles of a country against infringement by public or private actors

Judicial review: courts review laws and policies and overturn those that are seen as violations of the constitution

John Marshall: first Supreme Court Justice, decided Marbury vs Madison, which established principle of judicial review: "A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law."

Two forms of review:

Concrete review: power by which the court can rule on constitutional issues on the basis of disputes brought before it

Therefore, court decided ROE V WADE because case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court

Abstract Review: allows a court to decide on questions that do not arise from actual legal cases, sometimes even before legislation becomes law

Example: Constitutional Council in France

Also, International Court of Justice decreed that Israel's construction of a wall along the West Bank was illegal and unconstitutional, according to international law

What explains growth in judicial power?

Desire to protect human rights after WWII

Realized democracies could be controlled by dictators too

So, adoption of many human rights schematics, as well as international legal statutes:

War crimes trials, the Hague tribunals, International Court of Justice

European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights Act of 1998 ---> discuss tomorrow

Liberty: Civil Rights

- most basic component of democracy

- civil rights: individual rights that are created by the constitution and the regime

great deal of variation on what constitutes civil rights within historical eras and different countries

basic ones: freedom of speech and movement, right to religious freedom, right of public assembly and organization, equal treatment of the law, right to a fair trial, right to privacy, right to choose one's governments

Difference between negative and positive rights

Positive rights: education, health care, retirement benefits, housing, good living environment

Also differentiation on how rights should be limited

For instance - nearly absolute free speech in the United States

However, in Germany, neo-Nazi propaganda, books, and speech is banned, as is denial of the Holocaust

South Africa - outlaws racist or hate-laced speech

Do these constitute a threat to liberty? Is it ever safe to let a state determine what free speech can be limited to?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentary and Presidential

Features of a Parliamentary System:

a. head of government - a cabinet (ministers) and the Prime Minister (head of cabinet, head of govt)

b. prime minister is the head of the party in power (Blair, head of Labour)

c. Government can be removed by VOTE of no confidence

d. parliament can be dissolved by prime minister when he calls for new elections

e. Head of state and head of government very separated (queen and PM). In Germany - President and Chancellor

f. Head of state has reserve powers in case of dire crisis - very rarely used, if ever

g. Executive is dependent on the legislature, faces more direct questioning (Question Time), must be accountable to public

h. easier to pass legislation if there is a vast majority in the house

Different forms of parliamentarism:

Majority government - one party is clearly in the majority, has no legitimacy problems

Minority government - does not represent the majority in the parliament, parties must form coalition governments (share power with another party)

Advantages of Parliamentary system:

More accountable than presidential system: PM is more subject to shifts in public opinion

Easier to hold government accountable for actions

Easier to pass legislation in parliamentary systems (little possibility of stalemate) - although, House of Lords reform

Produces serious debates, allows change of power without an election, and allows elections at any time - not every 4 yrs

Juan Linz: Less prone to authoritarian collapse - since WWII, 2/3 of Third World countries that had parliamentary governments successfully transitioned to democracy

Critiques of Parliamentarism

Government is not directly elected - individuals can be surprised who their leader is (ex: Manhoman Singh instead of Sonia Gandhi)

No separation of executive and legislative power - some fear it puts too much power in the hands of the executive...also, parliamentary systems do not have strong independent judiciaries

Prime Minister is too powerful - now like a president (used to be, he was first among equals, now he is the top dog in Cabinet meetings)

Parliamentary systems can be unstable - Israel, Italy, Weimar Germany - lots of no confidence votes.

Not having a set election can allow parties to schedule elections when they are doing well, or postpone elections when they are doing poorly

Countries with parliaments: Afghanistan, Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom

Presidentialism

Features of Presidentialism

President is both head of state and head of government (can conflict - Bill Clinton)

Not part of the legislature

Fixed term of office

Cabinet is subordinate to the president

Advantages of Presidentialism:

Direct mandate: president directly elected by people - more legitimate. However, example of Bush declaring mandate

Separation of powers - cannot dominate judicial or legislative branch, branches can supervise each other, prevent abuse - how about Cheney and Scalia going duck hunting?

Speed and decisiveness - strong presidents can enact changes quickly. Otherwise, it's a slower process to get things done, which is better for the public

Stability - president is more stable than PM because he has a fixed term

Critiques of presidentialism:

Tendency towards authoritarianism - some say it's not constitutionally stable. some scholars say presidentialism has resulted in authoritarianism everywhere it's been attempted (not US)

Separation of powers - causes more gridlock and stagnation, and hinders government's ability to enact change or respond to current events

Leadership change - president is shielded from immediate accountability because of term limits

Examples: US, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Peru, Chile

Semi presidential system

has both a PM and a President

PM is popularly elected, not a figurehead

PM has some responsibility in the legislature

Division of powers differs within countries

France: President responsible for foreign policy (Chirac)

PM responsible for domestic policy (de Villepin)

Semi parliamentary systems occasionally have periods of COHABITATION - when President and PM are elected separately, and come from different parties - usually doesn't end well

Ex: Sri Lanka in resolving ethnic conflict, president and PM were of two different minds

System, or variations of this system, found in: Egypt, Mongolia, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine

Could presidentialism work like parliamentarism?

Multiple parties in presidential system - let's think about that

Different types of democracy not mentioned in text:

Consensus democracy:

usually occur in states with big differences between language and ethnic groups

no group forms a majority

needs CONSENSUS FROM ALL GROUPS to work well

coalition cabinets are popular

federal government, giving each region its relative sovereignty

proportional representation

Switzerland: Protestants, Catholics, French, German, Italian, Romansch speakers

uses referenda, confederation, and promises that all large parties will be included in cabinet - usually means it's oversized

Deliberative Democracy

Jurgen Habermas

legitimate legislatures can only occur with the deliberative participation of the citizenry

aims to include the marginalized groups in societies in these deliberations on legislation

Intended to stimulate CONVERSATION and DEBATE among different groups, bring them together to a consensus or understanding

Tries to involve WHOLE community

Strives to achieve MORALLY RIGHT decisions

Educates community, revitalizes civic culture, enables elected leaders to act decisively

offers a middle ground between traditional direct democracy and representative democracy

However, difficult to realize

Totalitarian democracy

system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, although given the right to vote, have little to no say in the formation of government opinions

Herbert Mancuse: "Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves"

TD states accept exclusive territorial sovereignty and has right to control everything/everyone

maximizes control over its citizens - general will (public good) and majority rule

ex: Patriot Act

so, in TDs, it is political, economic, and military elite who INTERPRET THE GENERAL WILL to reflect their own interests

citizens of TD states, even while acknowledging how powerless they are, can still choose to support the govt

Ex: Nazi regime, Stalin

Discuss Democracy and Democratic Peace article

Are democracies really more peaceful?

Gary J. Bass

The idea of the democratic peace originated with Immanuel Kant: citizens who must bear the miseries of war will not go to war with each other

Most scholars have concluded that a "democratic peace" does exist

Jack Snyder and Edward Mansfield argue that new democracies are often unstable and thus particularly warlike

Democratizing countries have not CONSOLIDATED the rule of law, organized political parties, and official news media (restraining institutions)

public can embrace "bellicose nationalists"

Examples: Tudjman and Milsovec

So -- democratic peace exists only when ESTABLISHED liberal democracies deal with each other

and democracies are warlike when confronting NON-DEMOCRATIC states

when democracies fight with dictator, democracy won't trust the dictator enough to negotiate with them, and will jump to war to rectify the situation

Elihu Root: "To be safe, democracy must kill its enemy when it can and where it can." TRoosevelt's Sec of State

said - world must be all democratic, or all dictatorship

But can world be made "all democratic?"

Very hard - states must first establish democratic institutions, then move into democracy

Argue that thrusting Islamic mass opinion onto a democracy will only lead to war

So without those institutions - greater political freedom does not mean democratization will occur

also...didn't war lead to greater consolidation of states within Europe?

so maybe that's the way it follows