View source for Democracy

{{Short description|Form of government}}
{{For-multi|representative democracy, which operates under the principles of liberalism|Liberal democracy|other uses|Democracy (disambiguation)|and|Democrat (disambiguation)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2024}}
{{Use British English|date=December 2015}}
[[File:Mandela voting in 1994.jpg|thumb|[[Nelson Mandela]] casting his ballot in the [[1994 South African general election]]. In the 1990s, the dissolution of [[apartheid]]&nbsp;in favour of [[universal suffrage]]&nbsp;allowed tens of millions of South Africans, including Mandela, to vote for the first time.|upright=0.9]]
{{Democracy}}
{{Basic forms of government}}

'''Democracy''' (from {{lang-grc|δημοκρατία|dēmokratía}}, ''dēmos'' 'people' and ''kratos'' 'rule')<ref name="Oxford">{{cite news|title=Democracy|agency=Oxford University Press|url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195148909.001.0001/acref-9780195148909-e-241|access-date=24 February 2021}}</ref> is a system of [[government]] in which [[Political power|state power]] is vested in [[people|the people]] or the [[Population|general population]] of a state.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Schwartzberg|first1=Melissa|title=Democracy|journal=The Encyclopedia of Political Thought|date=2014|pages=851–862|doi=10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0248|isbn=978-1-4051-9129-6}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2023-08-16|title=Democracy {{!}} Definition, History, Meaning, Types, Examples, & Facts|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy|access-date=2023-08-17|website=Encyclopædia Britannica}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Przeworski|first=Adam|date=2024|title=Who Decides What Is Democratic?|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/930423|journal=Journal of Democracy|volume=35|issue=3|pages=5–16|doi=10.1353/jod.2024.a930423|issn=1086-3214}}</ref> Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive definitions link democracy to guarantees of [[civil liberties]] and human rights in addition to competitive elections.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Dahl|first1=Robert A.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B8THIuSkiqgC|title=The Democracy Sourcebook|last2=Shapiro|first2=Ian|last3=Cheibub|first3=Jose Antonio|date=2003|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-54147-3|pages=31}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|date=Jan 2013|volume=24|issue=1|first1=Jørgen|last1=Møller|first2=Svend-Erik|last2=Skaaning|title=Regime Types and Democratic Sequencing|url=https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/regime-types-and-democratic-sequencing/|journal=Journal of Democracy|pages=142–155|doi=10.1353/jod.2013.0010|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240222213426/https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/regime-types-and-democratic-sequencing/|archive-date=22 February 2024|issn=1045-5736}}</ref><ref name=":4" />

In a [[direct democracy]], the people have the direct [[authority]] to [[deliberate]] and decide legislation. In a [[representative democracy]], the people choose governing [[officials]] through [[election]]s to do so. Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries. Features of democracy oftentimes include [[freedom of assembly]], [[freedom of association|association]], [[personal property]], [[freedom of religion]] and [[freedom of speech|speech]], [[citizenship]], [[consent of the governed]], [[voting rights]], freedom from unwarranted governmental [[wikt:deprivation|deprivation]] of the [[right to life]] and [[liberty]], and [[minority rights]].

The notion of democracy has evolved considerably over time. Throughout history, one can find evidence of direct democracy, in which [[communities]] make decisions through [[popular assembly]]. Today, the dominant form of democracy is representative democracy, where citizens elect government officials to govern on their behalf such as in a [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] or [[presidential democracy]]. Most democracies apply in most cases [[majority rule]],<ref name="webster">{{Cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy|title=Definition of DEMOCRACY|publisher=Merriam-Webster|access-date=5 July 2018}}</ref><ref>Locke, John. ''Two Treatises on Government: a Translation into Modern English''. Quote: "There is no practical alternative to majority political rule – i.e., to taking the consent of the majority as the act of the whole and binding every individual. It would be next to impossible to obtain the consent of every individual before acting collectively ... No rational people could desire and constitute a society that had to dissolve straightaway because the majority was unable to make the final decision and the society was incapable of acting as one body."[https://books.google.com/books?id=d_4BGe7-pFIC&pg=PR9 There is no practical alternative to majority political rule %E2%80%93 i.e., to taking the consent of the majority as the act of the whole and binding every individual." Google Books].</ref> but in some cases [[Plurality voting|plurality rule]], [[supermajority|supermajority rule]] (e.g. constitution) or [[consensus democracy|consensus rule]] (e.g. Switzerland) are applied. They serve the crucial purpose of inclusiveness and broader legitimacy on sensitive issues—counterbalancing [[majoritarianism]]—and therefore mostly take precedence on a constitutional level. In the common variant of [[liberal democracy]], the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but a [[constitution]] and [[supreme court]] limit the majority and protect the minority—usually through securing the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, such as freedom of speech or freedom of association.<ref>''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'': "democracy".</ref><ref name="Brittanica">{{cite encyclopedia|last1=Watkins|first1=Frederick|title=Democracy|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|date=1970|publisher=William Benton|isbn=978-0-85229-135-1|pages=215–23|edition=Expo '70 hardcover|volume=7}}</ref>

The term appeared in the 5th century BC in [[Greek city-state]]s, notably [[Classical Athens]], to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to [[aristocracy]] ({{lang|grc|ἀριστοκρατία}}, ''{{lang|la|aristokratía}}''), meaning "rule of an elite".<ref>Wilson, N.G. (2006). ''Encyclopedia of ancient Greece''. New York: Routledge. p. 511. {{ISBN|978-0-415-97334-2}}.</ref> [[Western democracy]], as distinct from that which existed in antiquity, is generally considered to have originated in [[city-states]] such as those in Classical Athens and the [[Roman Republic]], where various degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship was initially restricted to an elite class, which was later extended to all adult citizens. In most modern democracies, this was achieved through the [[suffrage]] movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is not vested in the [[Population|general population]] of a state, such as [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] systems. World public opinion strongly favors democratic systems of government.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2021|title=Humanity's Attitudes about Democracy and Political Leaders|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab056|journal=Public Opinion Quarterly|doi=10.1093/poq/nfab056|issn=0033-362X|last1=Anderson|first1=Christopher J.|last2=Bol|first2=Damien|last3=Ananda|first3=Aurelia|volume=85|issue=4|pages=957–986|pmid=35035302|pmc=8754486}}</ref> According to the [[V-Dem Democracy indices]] and [[The Economist Democracy Index]], less than half the world's population lives in a democracy {{as of|2022|lc=y}}.<ref name=V-dem>[https://www.v-dem.net/documents/19/dr_2022_ipyOpLP.pdf V-Dem Institute DEMOCRACY REPORT 2022: Autocratization Changing Nature?] pp. 6, 13, 18: "Dictatorships are on the rise and harbor 70% of the world population – 5.4 billion people."</ref><ref>Economic Intelligence Unit Democracy Index, 2022, p. 4: "According to our measure of democracy, less than half (45.7%) of the world's population now live in a democracy of some sort, a significant decline from 2020 (49.4%)."</ref>

{{TOC limit|4}}

==Characteristics==
Although democracy is generally understood to be defined by voting,<ref name="Oxford"/><ref name="Brittanica" /> no consensus exists on a precise definition of democracy.<ref name="economist2007" /> [[Karl Popper]] says that the "classical" view of democracy is, "in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people and that the people have a right to rule".<ref>Popper, Karl (23 April 1988). "The open society and its enemies revisited", ''[[The Economist]]'' ([https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited 2016 reprint]).</ref> One study identified 2,234 adjectives used to describe democracy in the English language.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gagnon|first=Jean-Paul|date=1 June 2018|title=2,234 Descriptions of Democracy|url=http://berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/democratic-theory/5/1/dt050107.xml|journal=Democratic Theory|volume=5|issue=1|pages=92–113|doi=10.3167/dt.2018.050107|s2cid=149825810|issn=2332-8894}}</ref>

Democratic principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being [[Equality before the law|equal before the law]] and having equal access to legislative processes.<ref>{{Cite web|title=direct democracy {{!}} Definition, History, & Facts|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/direct-democracy|access-date=2 February 2022|website=Encyclopædia Britannica}}</ref> For example, in a [[representative democracy]], every vote has (in theory) equal weight, and the freedom of eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically enshrined in a [[constitution]],<ref>{{cite book|last1=Dahl|first1=Robert A.|last2=Shapiro|first2=Ian|last3=Cheibub|first3=José Antônio|title=The democracy sourcebook|publisher=MIT Press|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|year=2003|isbn=978-0-262-54147-3}} [https://books.google.com/books?id=B8THIuSkiqgC Details.]</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Hénaff|first1=Marcel|last2=Strong|first2=Tracy B.|title=Public space and democracy|publisher=University of Minnesota Press|location=Minneapolis|year=2001|isbn=978-0-8166-3388-3}}</ref> while other uses of "democracy" may encompass [[direct democracy]], in which citizens vote on issues directly. According to the [[United Nations]], democracy "provides an environment that respects [[human rights]] and fundamental freedoms, and in which the [[Freedom of speech|freely expressed will of people]] is exercised."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Nations|first=United|title=Democracy|url=https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/democracy|access-date=2023-08-17|publisher=United Nations}}</ref>

One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: upward control (sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority), [[political equality]], and social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kimber|first=Richard|title=On democracy|journal=[[Scandinavian Political Studies]]|volume=12|issue=3|pages=201, 199–219|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9477.1989.tb00090.x|date=September 1989}} [https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/scandinavian_political_studies/article/view/13057/24875 Full text.] {{Webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20161017170633/https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/scandinavian_political_studies/article/view/13057/24875 |date=17 October 2016 }}</ref> [[Legal equality]], [[political freedom]] and [[rule of law]]<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-eXJMXnraPQC&pg=PA3|title=Assessing the Quality of Democracy|first1=Larry|last1=Diamond|first2=Leonardo|last2=Morlino|year=2005|publisher=JHU Press|isbn=978-0-8018-8287-6|via=Google Books}}</ref> are often identified by commentators as foundational characteristics for a well-functioning democracy.<ref name="economist2007">{{cite news|last=Staff writer|url=http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438|title=Liberty and justice for some|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|publisher=[[Economist Group]]|date=22 August 2007|quote=Democracy can be seen as a set of practices and principles that institutionalise and thus ultimately protect freedom. Even if a consensus on precise definitions has proved elusive, most observers today would agree that, at a minimum, the fundamental features of democracy include a government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of minorities and respect for basic human rights. Democracy presupposes equality before the law, due process and political pluralism.}}</ref>

In some countries, notably in the [[United Kingdom]] (which originated the [[Westminster system]]), the dominant principle is that of [[parliamentary sovereignty]], while maintaining [[judicial independence]].<ref name="Kopstein2014" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/|title=Parliamentary sovereignty|publisher=UK Parliament|access-date=18 August 2014|postscript=none}}; {{cite web|title=Independence|url=http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/|publisher=Courts and Tribunals Judiciary|access-date=9 November 2014}}</ref> In [[India]], parliamentary sovereignty is subject to the [[Constitution of India]] which includes [[judicial review]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Daily Express News|url=http://newindianexpress.com/nation/All-party-meet-vows-to-uphold-Parliament-supremacy/2013/08/02/article1713808.ece|title=All-party meet vows to uphold Parliament supremacy|date=2 August 2013|access-date=18 August 2013|work=[[The New Indian Express]]|publisher=Express Publications (Madurai) Limited|archive-date=27 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160327161524/http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/All-party-meet-vows-to-uphold-Parliament-supremacy/2013/08/02/article1713808.ece|url-status=dead}}</ref> Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a [[state (polity)|political state]], the principles also are potentially applicable to private organisations, such as clubs, societies and [[firm]]s.

Democracies may use many different decision-making methods, but [[majority rule]] is the dominant form. Without compensation, like legal protections of individual or group rights, [[minority group|political minorities]] can be oppressed by the "[[tyranny of the majority]]". Majority rule involves a competitive approach, opposed to [[consensus democracy]], creating the need that [[elections]], and generally [[deliberation]], be substantively and procedurally [[wikt:fair|"fair"]]," i.e. [[wikt:just|just]] and [[wikt:equitable|equitable]]. In some countries, [[freedom (political)|freedom of political expression]], [[freedom of speech]], and [[freedom of the press]] are considered important to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own interests and beliefs.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX7mAbjGOYC&pg=PA27|title=The Judge in a Democracy|first=Aharon|last=Barak|year=2006|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-12017-1|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kelsen|first=Hans|s2cid=144699481|title=Foundations of democracy|journal=Ethics|volume=66|issue=1|pages=1–101|doi=10.1086/291036|jstor=2378551|date=October 1955}}</ref>

It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.<ref>{{cite book|last=Nussbaum|first=Martha|author-link=Martha Nussbaum|title=Women and human development: the capabilities approach|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge New York|year=2000|isbn=978-0-521-00385-8}}</ref> With its emphasis on notions of [[social contract]] and the [[general will|collective will]] of all the voters, democracy can also be characterised as a form of political [[Collectivism and individualism|collectivism]] because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in [[lawmaking]].<ref>{{citation|last1=Snyder|first1=Richard|last2=Samuels|first2=David|contribution=Devaluing the vote in Latin America|editor-last1=Diamond|editor-first1=Larry|editor-last2=Plattner|editor-first2=Marc F.|title=Electoral systems and democracy|page=168|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|location=Baltimore|year=2006|isbn=978-0-8018-8475-7|postscript=.}}</ref>

[[Republic]]s, though often popularly associated with democracy because of the shared principle of rule by [[consent of the governed]], are not necessarily democracies, as [[republicanism]] does not specify ''how'' the people are to rule.<ref name="auto">[[R. R. Palmer]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=YGqYDwAAQBAJ ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800''] (1959)</ref>
Classically the term "[[republic]]" encompassed both democracies and [[Aristocracy|aristocracies]].<ref>Montesquieu, ''Spirit of Law'', Bk. II, ch. 2–3.</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Everdell|first=William R.|title=The end of kings: a history of republics and republicans|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|year=2000|orig-year=1983|edition=2nd|isbn=978-0-226-22482-4|url=https://archive.org/details/endofkingshistor00ever}}</ref> In a modern sense the republican form of government is a form of government without a [[monarch]]. Because of this, democracies can be republics or [[constitutional monarchy|constitutional monarchies]], such as the United Kingdom.

==History==
{{Main|History of democracy}}
[[File:Discurso funebre pericles.PNG|thumb|Nineteenth-century painting by [[Philipp Foltz]] depicting the Athenian politician [[Pericles]] delivering his famous [[Pericles' funeral oration|funeral oration]] in front of the [[Ecclesia (ancient Athens)|Assembly]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/detail.php?ID=131618|title=Pericles' Funeral Oration|publisher=the-athenaeum.org}}</ref>]]

[[Popular assembly|Democratic assemblies]] are as old as the human species and are found throughout human history,{{sfn|Graeber|2013|p=184}} but up until the nineteenth century, major political figures have largely opposed democracy.{{sfn|Graeber|2013|pp=168—169}} Republican theorists linked democracy to small size: as political units grew in size, the likelihood increased that the government would turn despotic.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Citation|last1=Thorhallsson|first1=Baldur|title=Small State Foreign Policy|date=2017|encyclopedia=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics|publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.484|isbn=978-0-19-022863-7|last2=Steinsson|first2=Sverrir|url=https://osf.io/7mrj9/}}</ref> At the same time, small political units were vulnerable to conquest.<ref name=":3" /> [[Montesquieu]] wrote, "If a republic be small, it is destroyed by a foreign force; if it is large, it is ruined by an internal imperfection."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_09.htm|title=Book IX. Of Laws in the Relation They Bear to a Defensive Force|first1=Charles|last1=de Montesquieu|work=The Spirit of Laws|publisher=Constitution Society|access-date=22 December 2019|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191222201302/https://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_09.htm|archive-date=22 December 2019}}</ref> According to Johns Hopkins University political scientist [[Daniel Deudney]], the creation of the United States, with its large size and its system of checks and balances, was a solution to the dual problems of size.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Democratic Internationalism: An American Grand Strategy for a Post-exceptionalist Era {{!}} Council on Foreign Relations |url=https://www.cfr.org/event/democratic-internationalism-american-grand-strategy-post-exceptionalist-era |access-date=2024-10-22 |website=www.cfr.org |language=en}}</ref> Forms of democracy occurred organically in societies around the world that had no contact with each other.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Graymont|first=Barbara|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/194977|title=The Iroquois in the American Revolution|date=1972|publisher=Syracuse University Press|isbn=978-0-8156-0083-1|edition=[1st ed.]|location=[Syracuse, N.Y.]|oclc=194977}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Priestland|first=David|date=2021-10-23|title=The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow review – inequality is not the price of civilisation|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/23/the-dawn-of-everything-by-david-graeber-and-david-wengrow-review-inequality-is-not-the-price-of-civilisation|access-date=2024-03-04|work=The Guardian|issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

===Origins===

====Greece and Rome====
{{See also|Athenian democracy}}

The term ''democracy'' first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of [[Athens]] during [[classical antiquity]].<ref>John Dunn, ''Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC&nbsp;– 1993 AD'', Oxford University Press, 1994, {{ISBN|978-0-19-827934-1}}</ref>{{sfn|Raaflaub|Ober|Wallace|2007|p={{page needed|date=July 2014}} }} The word comes from ''dêmos'' '(common) people' and ''krátos'' 'force/might'.<ref>[[Luciano Canfora]], ''La democrazias:Storia di un'ideologia,'' [[Editori Laterza|Laterza]] (2004) 2018 pp.12–13</ref> Under [[Cleisthenes]], what is generally held as the first example of a type of democracy in 508–507 BC was established in Athens. Cleisthenes is referred to as "the father of [[Athenian democracy]]".<ref>R. Po-chia Hsia, Lynn Hunt, Thomas R. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, and Bonnie G. Smith, ''The Making of the West, Peoples and Cultures, A Concise History, Volume I: To 1740'' (Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007), 44.</ref> The first attested use of the word democracy is found in prose works of the 430s BC, such as [[Herodotus]]' ''[[Histories (Herodotus)|Histories]]'', but its usage was older by several decades, as two Athenians born in the 470s were named Democrates, a new political name—likely in support of democracy—given at a time of debates over constitutional issues in Athens. [[Aeschylus]] also strongly alludes to the word in his play ''[[The Suppliants (Aeschylus)|The Suppliants]]'', staged in c.463 BC, where he mentions "the demos's ruling hand" [''demou kratousa cheir'']. Before that time, the word used to define the new political system of Cleisthenes was probably [[isonomia]], meaning political equality.<ref>Kurt A. Raaflaub, ''Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece'', pp. 108, 109.</ref>

Athenian democracy took the form of direct democracy, and it had two distinguishing features: the [[sortition|random selection]] of ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices,<ref>Aristotle Book 6</ref> and a legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens.<ref>{{cite book|first=Leonid E.|last=Grinin|url=http://www.socionauki.ru/book/early_state_en/|title=The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues|publisher=Uchitel' Publishing House|year=2004}}</ref> All eligible citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. However, Athenian citizenship excluded women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι / ''métoikoi''), and youths below the age of military service.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Davies|first=John K.|date=1977|title=Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and the Alternatives|journal=The Classical Journal|volume=73|issue=2|pages=105–121|jstor=3296866|issn=0009-8353}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_women_and_family?page=4|title=Women and Family in Athenian Law|website=stoa.org|access-date=1 March 2018|archive-date=1 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180301164428/http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_women_and_family?page=4|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{Contradictory inline|Athenian democracy|date=September 2014}} Effectively, only 1 in 4 residents in Athens qualified as citizens. Owning land was not a requirement for citizenship.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Manville|first=Philip Brook|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RBcABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA94|title=The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens|date=14 July 2014|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1-4008-6083-8}}</ref> The exclusion of large parts of the population from the citizen body is closely related to the ancient understanding of citizenship. In most of antiquity the benefit of citizenship was tied to the obligation to fight war campaigns.<ref>Susan Lape, ''Reproducing Athens: Menander's Comedy, Democratic Culture, and the Hellenistic City'', Princeton University Press, 2009, p. 4, {{ISBN|978-1-4008-2591-2}}</ref>

Athenian democracy was not only ''direct'' in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also the ''most direct'' in the sense that the people through the assembly, [[Boule (ancient Greece)|boule]] and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.{{sfn|Raaflaub|Ober|Wallace|2007|p=5}} Even though the rights of the individual were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense (the ancient Greeks had no word for "rights"{{sfn|Ober|Hedrick|1996|p=107}}), those who were citizens of Athens enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person.{{sfn|Clarke|Foweraker|2001|pp=194–201}}

[[Range voting]] appeared in [[Sparta]] as early as 700 BC. The [[Ecclesia (Sparta)|Spartan ecclesia]] was an assembly of the people, held once a month, in which every male citizen of at least 20 years of age could participate. In the assembly, Spartans elected leaders and cast votes by range voting and shouting (the vote is then decided on how loudly the crowd shouts). [[Aristotle]] called this "childish", as compared with the stone voting ballots used by the Athenian citizenry. Sparta adopted it because of its simplicity, and to prevent any biased voting, buying, or cheating that was predominant in the early democratic elections.<ref>Terrence A. Boring, ''Literacy in Ancient Sparta'', Leiden Netherlands (1979). {{ISBN|978-90-04-05971-9}}</ref>

Even though the [[Roman Republic]] contributed significantly to many aspects of democracy, only a minority of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for representatives. The votes of the powerful were given more weight through a system of [[weighted voting]], so most high officials, including members of the [[Roman Senate|Senate]], came from a few wealthy and noble families.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://annourbis.com/Ancient-Rome/8rome10.html|title=Ancient Rome from the earliest times down to 476 A.D|publisher=Annourbis.com|access-date=22 August 2010}}</ref> In addition, the [[Overthrow of the Roman monarchy|overthrow of the Roman Kingdom]] was the first case in the Western world of a polity being formed with the explicit purpose of being a [[republic]], although it didn't have much of a democracy. The Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries.<ref>{{harvnb|Livy|De Sélincourt|2002|p=34}}</ref>

====Ancient India ====
[[Vaishali (ancient city)|Vaishali]], capital city of the [[Vajjika League]] (Vrijji [[mahajanapada]]) of [[Ancient India|India]], is considered one of the first examples of a [[republic]] around the 6th century BC.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bindloss|first=Joe|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=T7ZHUhSEleYC&q=Vaishali&pg=PA556|title=India: Lonely planet Guide|author2=Sarina Singh|publisher=[[Lonely Planet]]|year=2007|isbn=978-1-74104-308-2|page=556}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Hoiberg|first=Dale|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DPP7O3nb3g0C&q=Vaishali&pg=PA208|title=Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1-5|author2=Indu Ramchandani|publisher=Popular Prakashan|year=2000|isbn=978-0-85229-760-5|page=208}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Kulke|first=Hermann|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TPVq3ykHyH4C&q=Vaishali&pg=PA57|title=A history of India|author2=Dietmar Rothermund|publisher=Routledge|year=2004|isbn=978-0-415-32919-4|page=57}}</ref>

====Americas====
Other cultures, such as the [[Iroquois]] in the Americas also developed a form of democratic society between 1450 and 1660 (and possibly in 1142{{sfn|Mann|Fields|1997}}), well before contact with the Europeans. This democracy continues to the present day and is the world's oldest standing representative democracy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lightfoot|first=Sheryl R.|date=2021|title=Decolonizing Self-Determination: Haudenosaunee Passports and Negotiated Sovereignty|journal=European Journal of International Relations|volume=27|issue=4|page=978|doi=10.1177/13540661211024713|issn=1354-0661|s2cid=237710260}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Communications|title=Government|url=https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/government/|access-date=2022-05-19|website=Haudenosaunee Confederacy}}</ref>

====Africa====
{{Main|Gadaa}}

===Middle Ages===
While most regions in [[Europe]] during the [[Middle Ages]] were ruled by [[clergy]] or [[feudal lords]], there existed various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small part of the population. In [[Scandinavia]], bodies known as [[Thing (assembly)|things]] consisted of freemen presided by a [[lawspeaker]]. These deliberative bodies were responsible for settling political questions, and variants included the [[Althing]] in [[Iceland]] and the [[Løgting]] in the [[Faeroe Islands]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d2osDwAAQBAJ&q=althing+democracy&pg=PR7|title=On Democracy: Second Edition|last=Dahl|first=Robert A.|date=1 October 2008|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-23332-2}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mG7vCgAAQBAJ&q=althing+democracy&pg=PT30|title=Heritage and Identity: Shaping the Nations of the North|last1=Fladmark|first1=J. M.|last2=Heyerdahl|first2=Thor|date=17 November 2015|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-74224-1}}</ref> The [[veche]], found in [[Eastern Europe]], was a similar body to the Scandinavian thing. In the Roman [[Catholic Church]], the [[pope]] has been elected by a [[papal conclave]] composed of cardinals since 1059. The first documented parliamentary body in Europe was the [[Cortes of León of 1188|Cortes of León]]. Established by [[Alfonso IX]] in 1188, the Cortes had authority over setting taxation, foreign affairs and legislating, though the exact nature of its role remains disputed.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=O'Callaghan|first1=Joseph F.|date=1989|title=The Cortes and Taxation|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv513b8x.12|journal=The Cortes of Castile-Leon, 1188–1350|pages=130–151|doi=10.9783/9781512819571|jstor=j.ctv513b8x.12|isbn=978-1-5128-1957-1}}</ref> The [[Republic of Ragusa]], established in 1358 and centered around the city of [[Dubrovnik]], provided representation and voting rights to its male aristocracy only. Various Italian city-states and polities had republic forms of government. For instance, the [[Republic of Florence]], established in 1115, was led by the [[Signoria of Florence|Signoria]] whose members were chosen by [[sortition]]. In the 10th–15th century [[Frisian freedom|Frisia]], a distinctly non-feudal society, the right to vote on local matters and on county officials was based on land size. The [[Kouroukan Fouga]] divided the [[Mali Empire]] into ruling clans (lineages) that were represented at a great assembly called the ''Gbara''. However, the charter made Mali more similar to a [[constitutional monarchy]] than a [[democratic republic]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=The oldest constitution in the world |url=https://www.jpic-jp.org/en/a/the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world |access-date=2024-10-22 |website=www.jpic-jp.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-09-27 |title=The World Won’t Listen: The Mande “Hunters’ Oath” and Human Rights in Translation |url=https://humanityjournal.org/issue13-2/the-world-wont-listen-the-mande-hunters-oath-and-human-rights-in-translation/ |access-date=2024-10-22 |website=Humanity Journal |language=en-US}}</ref>

[[File:Magna Carta (British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106).jpg|upright=1.3|thumb|[[Magna Carta]], 1215, England]]

The [[Parliament of England]] had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into [[Magna Carta]] (1215), which explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects and implicitly supported what became the English writ of [[habeas corpus]], safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with the right to appeal.<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta: an introduction|url=http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction|publisher=The British Library|access-date=28 January 2015|quote=Magna Carta is sometimes regarded as the foundation of democracy in England. ...Revised versions of Magna Carta were issued by King Henry III (in 1216, 1217 and 1225), and the text of the 1225 version was entered into the statute roll in 1297. ...The 1225 version of Magna Carta had been granted explicitly in return for a payment of tax by the whole kingdom, and this paved the way for the first summons of Parliament in 1265, to approve the granting of taxation.|archive-date=23 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210423002539/https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/making_history_citizen.htm|title=Citizen or Subject?|publisher=The National Archives|access-date=17 November 2013}}</ref> The first representative national assembly in [[Kingdom of England|England]] was [[Simon de Montfort's Parliament]] in 1265.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Jobson|first1=Adrian|title=The First English Revolution: Simon de Montfort, Henry III and the Barons' War|date=2012|publisher=Bloomsbury|isbn=978-1-84725-226-5|pages=173–74|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9gHWamp-TLoC&pg=PA174}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Simon de Montfort: The turning point for democracy that gets overlooked|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30849472|access-date=19 January 2015|publisher=BBC|postscript=none|date=19 January 2015}}; {{cite news|title=The January Parliament and how it defined Britain|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11355822/The-January-Parliament-and-how-it-defined-Britain.html|archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11355822/The-January-Parliament-and-how-it-defined-Britain.html|archive-date=10 January 2022|url-access=subscription|url-status=live|access-date=28 January 2015|newspaper=The Telegraph|date=20 January 2015}}{{cbignore}}</ref> The emergence of [[Parliament of England#Emergence as an institution|petitioning]] is some of the earliest evidence of parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people. However, the power to call parliament remained at the pleasure of the monarch.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/origins.htm|title=Origins and growth of Parliament|publisher=The National Archives|access-date=17 November 2013}}</ref>

Studies have linked the emergence of parliamentary institutions in Europe during the medieval period to urban agglomeration and the creation of new classes, such as artisans,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Abramson|first1=Scott F.|last2=Boix|first2=Carles|date=2019|title=Endogenous Parliaments: The Domestic and International Roots of Long-Term Economic Growth and Executive Constraints in Europe|journal=International Organization|volume=73|issue=4|pages=793–837|doi=10.1017/S0020818319000286|s2cid=211428630|issn=0020-8183}}</ref> as well as the presence of nobility and religious elites.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Møller|first=Jørgen|date=2014|title=Why Europe Avoided Hegemony: A Historical Perspective on the Balance of Power|journal=International Studies Quarterly|volume=58|issue=4|pages=660–670|doi=10.1111/isqu.12153}}</ref> Scholars have also linked the emergence of representative government to Europe's relative political fragmentation.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cox|first=Gary W.|date=2017|title=Political Institutions, Economic Liberty, and the Great Divergence|journal=The Journal of Economic History|volume=77|issue=3|pages=724–755|doi=10.1017/S0022050717000729|issn=0022-0507|doi-access=free}}</ref> Political scientist [[David Stasavage]] links the fragmentation of Europe, and its subsequent democratization, to the manner in which the Roman Empire collapsed: Roman territory was conquered by small fragmented groups of Germanic tribes, thus leading to the creation of small political units where rulers were relatively weak and needed the consent of the governed to ward off foreign threats.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stasavage|first=David|s2cid=14393625|date=11 May 2016|title=Representation and Consent: Why They Arose in Europe and Not Elsewhere|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=19|issue=1|pages=145–162|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-043014-105648|doi-access=free|issn=1094-2939}}</ref>

In [[Poland]], [[noble democracy]] was characterized by an increase in the activity of the middle [[szlachta|nobility]], which wanted to increase their share in exercising power at the expense of the magnates. Magnates dominated the most important offices in the state (secular and ecclesiastical) and sat on the royal council, later the senate. The growing importance of the middle nobility had an impact on the establishment of the institution of the land ''[[sejm]]ik'' (local assembly), which subsequently obtained more rights. During the fifteenth and first half of the sixteenth century, sejmiks received more and more power and became the most important institutions of local power. In 1454, [[Casimir IV Jagiellon]] granted the sejmiks the right to decide on taxes and to convene a mass mobilization in the [[Nieszawa Statutes]]. He also pledged not to create new laws without their consent.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lukowski|first1=Jerzy|last2=Zawadzki|first2=Hubert|title=A Concise History of Poland|date=January 2019|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-108-33399-3|edition=3rd}}</ref>

===Modern era===

====Early modern period====
[[File:John Locke.jpg|thumb|200px|upright|[[John Locke]] expanded on [[Thomas Hobbes]]'s [[social contract theory]] and developed the concept of [[natural rights]], the [[Right to property|right to private property]] and the principle of [[consent of the governed]]. His ideas form the ideological basis of [[liberal democracy|liberal democracies]] today.]]

In 17th century England, there was [[Magna Carta#17th–18th centuries|renewed interest in Magna Carta]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century|title=From legal document to public myth: Magna Carta in the 17th century|website=The British Library|access-date=16 October 2017|postscript=none|archive-date=18 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018101349/https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century|url-status=dead}}; {{Cite web|url=https://www.sal.org.uk/events/2015/06/magna-carta-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century/|title=Magna Carta: Magna Carta in the 17th Century|website=The Society of Antiquaries of London|access-date=16 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180925053248/https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century|archive-date=25 September 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> The Parliament of England passed the [[Petition of Right]] in 1628 which established certain liberties for subjects. The [[English Civil War]] (1642–1651) was fought between the King and an oligarchic but elected Parliament,<ref>{{cite web|title=Origins and growth of Parliament|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/origins.htm|publisher=The National Archives|access-date=7 April 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Rise of Parliament|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/rise_parliament/citizenship2.htm|publisher=The National Archives|access-date=7 April 2015}}</ref> during which the idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation during the [[Putney Debates]] of 1647.<ref>{{cite web|title=Putney debates|url=https://www.bl.uk/taking-liberties/articles/putney-debates|publisher=The British Library|access-date=22 December 2016|archive-date=22 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222223321/https://www.bl.uk/taking-liberties/articles/putney-debates|url-status=dead}}</ref> Subsequently, [[the Protectorate]] (1653–59) and the [[English Restoration]] (1660) restored more autocratic rule, although Parliament passed the [[Habeas Corpus Act 1679|Habeas Corpus Act]] in 1679 which strengthened the convention that forbade detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. After the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688, the [[Bill of Rights 1689|Bill of Rights]] was enacted in 1689 which codified certain rights and liberties and is still in effect. The Bill set out the requirement for regular elections, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that, unlike much of Europe at the time, [[royal absolutism]] would not prevail.<ref name="refNARoP" /><ref>{{cite web|title=Constitutionalism: America & Beyond|url=http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html|publisher=Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State|access-date=30 October 2014|quote=The earliest, and perhaps greatest, victory for liberalism was achieved in England. The rising commercial class that had supported the Tudor monarchy in the 16th century led the revolutionary battle in the 17th and succeeded in establishing the supremacy of Parliament and, eventually, of the House of Commons. What emerged as the distinctive feature of modern constitutionalism was not the insistence on the idea that the king is subject to law (although this concept is an essential attribute of all constitutionalism). This notion was already well established in the Middle Ages. What was distinctive was the establishment of effective means of political control whereby the rule of law might be enforced. Modern constitutionalism was born with the political requirement that representative government depended upon the consent of citizen subjects... However, as can be seen through provisions in the 1689 Bill of Rights, the English Revolution was fought not just to protect the rights of property (in the narrow sense) but to establish those liberties which liberals believed essential to human dignity and moral worth. The "rights of man" enumerated in the English Bill of Rights gradually were proclaimed beyond the boundaries of England, notably in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789.|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024130317/http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html|archive-date=24 October 2014}}</ref> Economic historians [[Douglass North]] and [[Barry R. Weingast|Barry Weingast]] have characterized the institutions implemented in the Glorious Revolution as a resounding success in terms of restraining the government and ensuring protection for property rights.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=North|first1=Douglass C.|last2=Weingast|first2=Barry R.|date=1989|title=Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England|journal=The Journal of Economic History|volume=49|issue=4|pages=803–832|doi=10.1017/S0022050700009451|s2cid=3198200|issn=1471-6372}}</ref>

Renewed interest in the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, and the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century prompted the growth of [[political philosophy]] on the British Isles. [[Thomas Hobbes]] was the first philosopher to articulate a detailed [[social contract theory]]. Writing in the ''[[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|Leviathan]]'' (1651), Hobbes theorized that individuals living in the [[state of nature]] led lives that were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" and constantly waged a [[Bellum omnium contra omnes|war of all against all]]. In order to prevent the occurrence of an anarchic state of nature, Hobbes reasoned that individuals ceded their rights to a strong, authoritarian power. In other words, Hobbes advocated for an absolute monarchy which, in his opinion, was the best form of government. Later, philosopher and physician [[John Locke]] would posit a different interpretation of social contract theory. Writing in his ''[[Two Treatises of Government]]'' (1689), Locke posited that all individuals possessed the inalienable rights to life, liberty and estate (property).<ref name="Locke-Laslett1988">{{cite book|title=Two Treatises of Government|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge, NY|first=John|last=Locke|author-link=John Locke|editor-first=Peter|editor-last=Laslett|at=[https://archive.org/details/twotreatisesofgo00john/page/ Sec. 87, 123, 209, 222]|year=1988|orig-year=1689|isbn=978-0-521-35448-6|url=https://archive.org/details/twotreatisesofgo00john/page/}}</ref> According to Locke, individuals would voluntarily come together to form a state for the purposes of defending their rights. Particularly important for Locke were property rights, whose protection Locke deemed to be a government's primary purpose.<ref>Locke, John. ''Two Treatises on Government: a Translation into Modern English''. Quote: "Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. [https://books.google.com/books?id=d_4BGe7-pFIC&pg=PR9 There is no practical alternative to majority political rule %E2%80%93 i.e., to take the consent of the majority as the act of the whole and binding every individual." Google Books].</ref> Furthermore, Locke asserted that governments were [[legitimacy (political)|legitimate]] only if they held the [[consent of the governed]]. For Locke, citizens had the [[right of revolution|right to revolt]] against a government that acted against their interest or became tyrannical. Although they were not widely read during his lifetime, Locke's works are considered the founding documents of [[liberalism|liberal]] thought and profoundly influenced the leaders of the [[American Revolution]] and later the [[French Revolution]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Curte|first1=Merle|date=1937|title=The Great Mr. Locke: America's Philosopher, 1783–1861|journal=The Huntington Library Bulletin|issue=11|pages=107–151|jstor=3818115|issn=1935-0708}}</ref> His liberal democratic framework of governance remains the preeminent form of democracy in the world.

In the Cossack republics of Ukraine in the 16th and 17th centuries, the [[Cossack Hetmanate]] and [[Zaporizhian Sich]], the holder of the highest post of [[Hetmans of Ukrainian Cossacks|Hetman]] was elected by the representatives from the country's districts.

In North America, representative government began in [[Jamestown, Virginia]], with the election of the [[House of Burgesses]] (forerunner of the [[Virginia General Assembly]]) in 1619. English Puritans who migrated from 1620 established colonies in New England whose local governance was democratic;<ref>[[Alexis de Tocqueville|Tocqueville, Alexis de]] (2003). [[Democracy in America]]. Barnes & Noble. pp. 11, 18–19. {{ISBN|978-0-7607-5230-2}}.</ref> although these local assemblies had some small amounts of devolved power, the ultimate authority was held by the Crown and the English Parliament. The [[Puritans]] ([[Pilgrim Fathers]]), [[Baptists]], and [[Quakers]] who founded these colonies applied the democratic organisation of their congregations also to the administration of their communities in worldly matters.<ref>[[Allen Weinstein]] and David Rubel (2002), ''The Story of America: Freedom and Crisis from Settlement to Superpower'', DK Publishing, Inc., New York, {{ISBN|978-0-7894-8903-6}}, p. 61</ref><ref>Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), ''History of Religion in the [[United States]]'', Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 63–65, 74–75, 102–05, 114–15</ref><ref>Christopher Fennell (1998), [http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/ccflaw.html ''Plymouth Colony Legal Structure''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120429000512/http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/ccflaw.html |date=29 April 2012 }}</ref>

====18th and 19th centuries====
[[File:Austria Parlament Athena bw.jpg|thumb|upright|Statue of [[Athena]], the patron goddess of [[Athens]], in front of the [[Austrian Parliament Building]]. Athena has been used as an international symbol of freedom and democracy since at least the late eighteenth century.<ref>{{cite book|last=Deacy|first=Susan|author-link=Susan Deacy|title=Athena|location=London and New York|publisher=Routledge|date=2008|isbn=978-0-415-30066-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kIiCAgAAQBAJ&q=Athena+and+Ares+Darmon&pg=PA163|pages=145–49}}</ref>]]

The [[first Parliament of Great Britain]] was established in 1707, after the merger of the [[Kingdom of England]] and the [[Kingdom of Scotland]] under the [[Acts of Union 1707|Acts of Union]]. Two key documents of the [[Constitution of the United Kingdom|UK's uncodified constitution]], the English [[Declaration of Right, 1689]] (restated in the [[Bill of Rights 1689]]) and the Scottish [[Claim of Right 1689]], had both cemented Parliament's position as the supreme law-making body and said that the "election of members of Parliament ought to be free".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Chavetz|first1=Josh|title=Democracy's Privileged Few. Legislative Privilege and Democratic Norms in the British and American Constitutions|date=2007|publisher=Yale University Press|page=274}}</ref> However, Parliament was only elected by male property owners, which amounted to 3% of the population in 1780.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm|title=Getting the vote|publisher=The National Archives|access-date=22 August 2010}}</ref> The first known British person of [[African diaspora|African]] heritage to vote in a general election, [[Ignatius Sancho]], voted in 1774 and 1780.<ref>{{cite news|title=Record of Ignatius Sancho's vote in the general election, October 1774|url=https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/record-of-ignatius-sanchos-vote-in-the-general-election-october-1774|access-date=2 October 2020|agency=British Library|archive-date=30 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930142733/https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/record-of-ignatius-sanchos-vote-in-the-general-election-october-1774|url-status=dead}}</ref>

During the [[Age of Liberty]] in Sweden (1718–1772), [[civil rights]] were expanded and power shifted from the monarch to parliament.<ref>Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Sweden". ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 188–221.</ref> The taxed peasantry was represented in parliament, although with little influence, but commoners without taxed property had no suffrage.

The creation of the short-lived [[Corsican Republic]] in 1755 was an early attempt to adopt a democratic [[constitution]] (all men and women above age of 25 could vote).<ref>{{cite book|title=The ungovernable rock: a history of the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom and its role in Britain's Mediterranean strategy during the Revolutionary War, 1793–1797|first=Desmond|last=Gregory|year=1985|publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson University Press|location=London|page=31|isbn=978-0-8386-3225-3}}</ref> This [[Corsican Constitution]] was the first based on [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] principles and included [[female suffrage]], something that was not included in most other democracies until the 20th century.

[[Colonial history of the United States|Colonial America]] had similar property qualifications as Britain, and in the period before 1776 the abundance and availability of land meant that large numbers of colonists met such requirements with at least 60 per cent of adult white males able to vote.<ref>Donald Ratcliffe,  "[http://jer.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf The right to vote and the rise of democracy, 1787—1828]". ''Journal of the Early Republic'' 33.2 (2013): 219–254.</ref> The great majority of white men were farmers who met the property ownership or taxpaying requirements. With few exceptions, no blacks or women could vote. [[Vermont]], which, on declaring independence of Great Britain in 1777, adopted a constitution modelled on Pennsylvania's citizenship and democratic suffrage for males with or without property.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Dinkin|first=Robert|url=https://archive.org/details/votinginrevoluti00dink/page/37|title=Voting in Revolutionary America: A Study of Elections in the Original Thirteen States, 1776–1789|publisher=Greenwood Publishing|year=1982|isbn=978-0-313-23091-2|location=US|pages=[https://archive.org/details/votinginrevoluti00dink/page/37 37–42]}}</ref> The [[United States Constitution]] of 1787 is the oldest surviving, still active, governmental [[codified constitution]]. The Constitution provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties, but did not end [[Slavery in the United States|slavery]] nor extend [[voting rights in the United States]], instead leaving the issue of suffrage to the individual states.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ratcliffe|first=Donald|date=Summer 2013|title=The Right to Vote and the Rise of Democracy, 1787–1828|url=https://jer.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf|journal=Journal of the Early Republic|volume=33|issue=2|pages=231|doi=10.1353/jer.2013.0033|s2cid=145135025|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230602005114/https://jer.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf|archive-date=2 June 2023}}</ref> Generally, states limited suffrage to white male property owners and taxpayers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ratcliffe|first=Donald|date=Summer 2013|title=The Right to Vote and the Rise of Democracy, 1787–1828|url=https://jer.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf|journal=Journal of the Early Republic|volume=33|issue=2|pages=225–229|doi=10.1353/jer.2013.0033|s2cid=145135025|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230602005114/https://jer.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf|archive-date=2 June 2023}}</ref> At the time of the first [[1788–89 United States presidential election|Presidential election in 1789]], about 6% of the population was eligible to vote.<ref>{{cite web|title=Expansion of Rights and Liberties – The Right of Suffrage|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|archive-date=6 July 2016|access-date=21 April 2015|website=Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom|publisher=National Archives}}</ref> The [[Naturalization Act of 1790]] limited U.S. citizenship to whites only.<ref name="Schultz">{{cite book|last=Schultz|first=Jeffrey D.|title=Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: African Americans and Asian Americans|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WDV40aK1T-sC&pg=PA284|page=284|year=2002|publisher=Oryx Press|access-date=8 October 2015|isbn=978-1-57356-148-8}}</ref> The [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]] in 1791 set limits on government power to protect personal freedoms but had little impact on judgements by the courts for the first 130 years after ratification.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Bill of Rights: A Brief History|url=https://www.aclu.org/bill-rights-brief-history|publisher=ACLU|access-date=21 April 2015}}</ref>

In 1789, [[Revolutionary France]] adopted the [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]] and, although short-lived, the [[National Convention]] was elected by all men in 1792.<ref>{{cite web|title=The French Revolution II|url=http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev892.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080827213104/http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev892.html|archive-date=27 August 2008|access-date=22 August 2010|publisher=Mars.wnec.edu}}</ref> The [[Constitution of 3 May 1791|Polish-Lithuanian Constitution]] of 3 May 1791 sought to implement a more effective [[constitutional monarchy]], introduced political equality between townspeople and nobility, and placed the peasants under the protection of the government, mitigating the worst abuses of [[serfdom]]. In force for less than 19 months, it was declared null and void by the [[Grodno Sejm]] that met in 1793.<ref name="Davies1992" /><ref name="Ligeza2017" /> Nonetheless, the 1791 Constitution helped keep alive Polish aspirations for the eventual restoration of the country's sovereignty over a century later.

[[File:Suffrage universel 1848.jpg|thumb|left|1850s lithograph marking the establishment of [[universal male suffrage]] in France in 1848]]

In the United States, the [[1828 United States presidential election|1828 presidential election]] was the first in which non-property-holding white males could vote in the vast majority of states. Voter turnout soared during the 1830s, reaching about 80% of the adult white male population in the [[1840 United States presidential election|1840 presidential election]].<ref>William G. Shade, "The Second Party System". in Paul Kleppner, et al. ''Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983) pp 77–111</ref> North Carolina was the last state to abolish property qualification in 1856 resulting in a close approximation to universal white male suffrage (however tax-paying requirements remained in five states in 1860 and survived in two states until the 20th century).<ref name="Engerman2005">{{Cite web|first1=Stanley L.|last1=Engerman|first2=Kenneth L.|last2=Sokoloff|title=The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World|date=2005|url=http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sokoloff-050406.pdf|pages=14–16|ref=refEngerman2005|access-date=12 October 2020|archive-date=11 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111211244/http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sokoloff-050406.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Scher2015">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=POzqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR9|title=The Politics of Disenfranchisement: Why is it So Hard to Vote in America?|last=Scher|first=Richard K.|date=2015|page=viii–ix|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-45536-3}}</ref><ref name="NHLTS2009">{{Cite web|date=2009|title=Civil Rights in America: Racial Voting Rights|url=https://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150702010008/http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf|archive-date=2015-07-02|url-status=live|publisher=A National Historic Landmarks Theme Study}}</ref> In the [[1860 United States census]], the slave population had grown to four million,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm|title=Introduction – Social Aspects of the Civil War|publisher=Itd.nps.gov|access-date=22 August 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070714073725/http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm|archive-date=14 July 2007}}</ref> and in [[Reconstruction era of the United States|Reconstruction]] after the Civil War, three constitutional amendments were passed: the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|13th Amendment]] (1865) that ended slavery; the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]] (1869) that gave black people citizenship, and the [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|15th Amendment]] (1870) that gave black males a nominal right to vote.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000965.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610193453/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000965.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=10 June 2014|title=Fifteenth Amendment: Framing and ratification|author=Gillette, William|year=1986|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of the American Constitution|access-date=23 June 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Black voting rights, 15th Amendment still challenged after 150 years|url=https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/02/03/black-voting-rights-15th-amendment-still-challenged-after-150-years/4587160002/|access-date=18 November 2020|newspaper=USA Today}}</ref>{{refn|group=nb|The [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] in 1868 altered the way each state is represented in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]]. It counted all residents for apportionment including slaves, overriding the [[three-fifths compromise]], and reduced a state's apportionment if it wrongfully denied males over the age of 21 the right to vote; however, this was not enforced in practice. Some poor white men remained excluded at least until the passage of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]]. For state elections, it was not until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in ''[[Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections]]'' (1966) that all state poll taxes were unconstitutional as violating the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the Fourteenth Amendment. This removed a burden on the poor.}} Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after the [[civil rights movement]] gained passage by the US Congress of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]].<ref>[http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100&page=transcript Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)] US National Archives.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090214180002/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,897070,00.html The Constitution: The 24th Amendment] Time.</ref>

The voting franchise in the United Kingdom was expanded and made more uniform in a [[Reform Acts|series of reforms]] that began with the [[Reform Act 1832]] and continued into the 20th century, notably with the [[Representation of the People Act 1918]] and the [[Equal Franchise Act 1928]]. [[Universal male suffrage]] was established in [[France]] in March 1848 in the wake of the [[French Revolution of 1848]].<ref>{{cite web|author=French National Assembly|title=1848 " Désormais le bulletin de vote doit remplacer le fusil "|url=http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/suffrage_universel/suffrage-1848.asp|access-date=26 September 2009}}</ref> During that year, several [[Revolutions of 1848|revolutions broke out in Europe]] as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic government.<ref>"[http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h114_2002/democracy.htm Movement toward greater democracy in Europe] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100804213940/http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h114_2002/democracy.htm|date=4 August 2010}}". Indiana University Northwest.</ref>

In 1876, the Ottoman Empire transitioned from an [[absolute monarchy]] to a constitutional one, and held two elections the next year to elect members to her newly formed parliament.<ref>Hasan Kayalı (1995) [http://psi203.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/Kayali, Elections in the Ott Empire (1995).pdf "Elections and the Electoral Process in the Ottoman Empire, 1876–1919"] ''International Journal of Middle East Studies'', Vol. 27, No. 3, pp 265–286</ref> Provisional Electoral Regulations were issued, stating that the elected members of the Provincial Administrative Councils would elect members to the first [[Parliament of the Ottoman Empire|Parliament]]. Later that year, a new constitution was promulgated, which provided for a [[Bicameralism|bicameral]] Parliament with a [[Senate of the Ottoman Empire|Senate]] appointed by [[Abdul Hamid II|the Sultan]] and a popularly elected [[Chamber of Deputies (Ottoman Empire)|Chamber of Deputies]]. Only men above the age of 30 who were competent in [[Turkish language|Turkish]] and had full civil rights were allowed to stand for election. Reasons for disqualification included holding dual citizenship, being employed by a foreign government, being bankrupt, employed as a servant, or having "notoriety for ill deeds". Full universal suffrage was achieved in 1934.<ref>{{cite book|title=Reconstructing Gender in Middle East: Tradition, Identity, and Power|date=1995|publisher=Columbia University Press|page=101}}</ref>

In 1893, the self-governing colony [[New Zealand]] became the first country in the world (except for the short-lived 18th-century Corsican Republic) to establish active [[universal suffrage]] by recognizing women as having the right to vote.<ref>{{cite book|last=Nohlen|first=Dieter|author-link=Dieter Nohlen|date=2001|title=Elections in Asia and the Pacific: South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific|page=14|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>

====20th and 21st centuries====
[[File:Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale.png|thumb|The number of nations 1800–2003 scoring 8 or higher on [[Polity IV]] scale, another widely used measure of democracy{{Update inline|date=March 2024}}]]

20th-century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "[[waves of democracy]]", variously resulting from wars, revolutions, [[decolonisation]], and religious and economic circumstances.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Diamond|first1=Larry|title=Timeline: Democracy in Recession|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/13/opinion/larry-diamond-democracy-in-recession-timeline.html|access-date=25 January 2016|work=The New York Times|date=15 September 2015}}</ref> Global waves of "democratic regression" reversing democratization, have also occurred in the 1920s and 30s, in the 1960s and 1970s, and in the 2010s.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/authoreditor/yascha-mounk|title=The Signs of Deconsolidation|last=Mounk|first=Yascha|date=January 2017|access-date=16 May 2017|journal=Journal of Democracy}}</ref>

[[File:Opening of the first parliament.jpg|thumb|right|Painting depicting the opening of the first Australian Parliament in 1901, one of the events that formed part of the [[Waves of democracy#First wave|first wave of democracy]] in the early 20th century]]

[[World War I]] and the dissolution of the autocratic [[Ottoman empire|Ottoman]] and [[Austria-Hungary|Austro-Hungarian]] empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic. In the 1920s democratic movements flourished and [[Timeline of women's suffrage|women's suffrage]] advanced, but the [[Great Depression]] brought disenchantment and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. [[Fascism]] and dictatorships flourished in [[Nazi Germany]], [[Italy]], [[Spain]] and [[Portugal]], as well as non-democratic governments in the [[Baltics]], the [[Balkans]], [[Brazil]], [[Cuba]], [[China]], and [[Japan]], among others.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snl.depaul.edu/contents/current/syllabi/HC_314.doc|title=Age of Dictators: Totalitarianism in the inter-war period|access-date=7 September 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060907220746/http://www.snl.depaul.edu/contents/current/syllabi/HC_314.doc|archive-date=7 September 2006}}</ref>

[[File:Lev Trotsky 1906-3.3 V1.jpg|250x250px|thumb|left|The [[Saint Petersburg Soviet|Soviet of Workers' Deputies of Saint Petersburg]] in 1905: [[Leon Trotsky]] in the center. The [[soviet (council)|soviets]] were as an early example of a [[workers council]].]]

[[World War II]] brought a definitive reversal of this trend in Western Europe. The [[democratisation]] of the [[Allied Control Council|American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany]] (disputed<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=599|title=Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute|publisher=Independent.org|access-date=22 August 2010}}</ref>), Austria, Italy, and the [[occupied Japan]] served as a model for the later theory of [[government change]]. However, most of [[Eastern Europe]], including the [[German Democratic Republic|Soviet sector of Germany]] fell into the non-democratic [[Eastern Bloc|Soviet-dominated bloc]].

The war was followed by [[decolonisation]], and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. [[India]] emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1154019.stm|title=World &#124; South Asia &#124; Country profiles &#124; Country profile: India|publisher=BBC News|date=7 June 2010|access-date=22 August 2010}}</ref> Countries that were once part of the [[British Empire]] often adopted the British [[Westminster system]].<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Arjomand|editor1-first=Saïd Amir|title=Constitutionalism and political reconstruction|date=2007|publisher=Brill|isbn=978-90-04-15174-1|pages=92–94|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kYmmnYKEvE0C&pg=PA94|author1=Julian Go|chapter=A Globalizing Constitutionalism?, Views from the Postcolony, 1945–2000}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=How the Westminster Parliamentary System was exported around the World|url=http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/how-the-westminster-parliamentary-system-was-exported-around-the-world|publisher=University of Cambridge|access-date=16 December 2013|date=2 December 2013}}</ref>

In 1948, the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] mandated democracy:

{{Blockquote|text=3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.|multiline=yes|source=[https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21, United Nations, 1948]}}

By 1960, the vast majority of country-states were nominally democracies, although most of the world's populations lived in nominal democracies that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in [[Communist state|"Communist" states]] and the former colonies). A subsequent wave of [[democratisation]] brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many states, dubbed "third wave of democracy". Portugal, Spain, and several of the military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian rule in the 1970s and 1980s.{{refn|group=nb|[[Portuguese transition to democracy|Portugal in 1974]], [[Spanish democratic transition|Spain in 1975]], [[Argentine transition to democracy|Argentina in 1983]], [[History of Bolivia|Bolivia]], [[History of Uruguay|Uruguay in 1984]], [[History of Brazil (1985–present)|Brazil in 1985]], and [[Chilean transition to democracy|Chile in the early 1990s]].}} This was followed by countries in [[East Asia|East]] and [[South Asia]] by the mid-to-late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of Soviet oppression, contributed to the [[History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991)|collapse of the Soviet Union]], the associated end of the [[Cold War]], and the democratisation and [[liberalisation]] of the former [[Eastern bloc]] countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now either part of the [[European Union]] or [[Potential enlargement of the European Union|candidate states]]. In 1986, after the toppling of the most prominent Asian dictatorship, the only democratic state of its kind at the time emerged in the [[Philippines]] with the rise of [[Corazon Aquino]], who would later be known as the mother of [[Democracy in Asia|Asian democracy]].

[[File:Corazon Aquino inauguration.jpg|thumb|right|[[Corazon Aquino]] taking the Oath of Office, becoming the first female president in Asia]]

The liberal trend spread to some states in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of liberalisation include the [[Indonesian Revolution of 1998]], the [[Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević|Bulldozer Revolution]] in [[Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]], the [[Rose Revolution]] in [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]], the [[Orange Revolution]] in Ukraine, the [[Cedar Revolution]] in Lebanon, the [[Tulip Revolution]] in [[Kyrgyzstan]], and the [[2010–2011 Tunisian revolution|Jasmine Revolution]] in [[Tunisia]].

[[File:Age of democracies at the end of 2015, OWID.svg|thumb|Age of democracies at the end of 2015<ref>{{cite web|title=Age of democracies at the end of 2015|url=https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/age-of-democracies|access-date=15 February 2020|website=Our World in Data|archive-date=15 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200215230538/https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/age-of-democracies|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{Update inline|date=March 2024}}]]

According to [[Freedom House]], in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=368&year=2007|title=Tables and Charts|publisher=Freedomhouse.org|date=10 May 2004|access-date=22 August 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090713213025/http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=368&year=2007|archive-date=13 July 2009}}</ref> According to ''World Forum on Democracy'', electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2 per cent of the world's population. At the same time liberal democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38 per cent of the global population.<ref>{{Cite web|title=List of Electoral Democracies|url=http://www.fordemocracy.net/electoral.shtml|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131016184935/http://www.fordemocracy.net/electoral.shtml|archive-date=16 October 2013|website=World Forum on Democracy}}</ref> Also in 2007 the [[United Nations]] declared 15 September the [[International Day of Democracy]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10655.doc.htm|title=General Assembly declares 15 September International Day of Democracy; Also elects 18 Members to Economic and Social Council|publisher=United Nations|access-date=22 August 2010}}</ref>

[[File:Nordiska radets presidium haller mote med de nordiska statsministrarna under session i Helsingfors 2008-10-28.jpg|thumb|Meeting of the Grand Committee of the [[Parliament of Finland]] in 2008]]

Many countries reduced their [[voting age]] to 18 years; the major democracies began to do so in the 1970s starting in Western Europe and North America.<ref name=":32">{{Cite web|last=Bingham|first=Adrian|date=25 June 2019|title='The last milestone' on the journey to full adult suffrage? 50 years of debates about the voting age|url=https://www.historyandpolicy.org/index.php/policy-papers/papers/the-last-milestone-on-the-journey-to-full-adult-suffrage|access-date=2022-12-31|website=History & Policy}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=January 2023|reason=This is about the 1960s, not the 1970s.}}<ref>{{Cite web|title=Archives of Maryland, Volume 0138, Page 0051 – Constitutional Revision Study Documents of the Constitutional Convention Commission, 1968|url=https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000138/html/am138--51.html|access-date=2023-01-03|website=msa.maryland.gov}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Sanders|first=Mark|title=Your Right To Vote|date=2000|publisher=Raintree Steck- Vaugh company|location=United States}}</ref> Most electoral democracies continue to exclude those younger than 18 from voting.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wall|first=John|date=October 2014|title=Democratising democracy: the road from women's to children's suffrage|url=https://johnwall.camden.rutgers.edu/files/2014/10/Democratising-Democracy-The-Road-from-Womens-to-Childrens-Suffrage1.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170420200500/http://johnwall.camden.rutgers.edu/files/2014/10/Democratising-Democracy-The-Road-from-Womens-to-Childrens-Suffrage1.pdf|archive-date=2017-04-20|url-status=live|journal=The International Journal of Human Rights|volume=18|issue=6|pages=646–59|doi=10.1080/13642987.2014.944807|s2cid=144895426|via=Rutgers University}}</ref> The voting age has been lowered to 16 for national elections in a number of countries, including Brazil, Austria, Cuba, and Nicaragua. In California, a 2004 proposal to permit a quarter vote at 14 and a half vote at 16 was ultimately defeated. In 2008, the German parliament proposed but shelved a bill that would grant the vote to each citizen at birth, to be used by a parent until the child claims it for themselves.

According to Freedom House, starting in 2005, there have been 17 consecutive years in which declines in political rights and civil liberties throughout the world have outnumbered improvements,<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite news|date=2023-07-16|title=Biden Says Democracy Is Winning. It's Not That Simple.|publisher=Bloomberg|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-16/is-biden-right-that-us-democracy-is-beating-china-and-russia|access-date=2023-07-19}}</ref> as [[Populism|populist]] and [[Nationalism|nationalist]] political forces have gained ground everywhere from Poland (under the [[Law and Justice (Poland)|Law and Justice Party]]) to the Philippines (under [[Rodrigo Duterte]]).<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /> In a Freedom House report released in 2018, Democracy Scores for most countries declined for the 12th consecutive year.<ref>[https://www.voanews.com/a/freedom-house-reports-decrease-in-democratic-principles/4209557.html "Freedom House: Democracy Scores for Most Countries Decline for 12th Consecutive Year"], VOA News, 16 January 2018. Retrieved 21 January 2018.</ref> ''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'' reported that [[nationalist]] and [[populist]] political ideologies were gaining ground, at the expense of [[rule of law]], in countries like Poland, Turkey and Hungary. For example, in Poland, the President [[2015–present Polish constitutional crisis|appointed 27 new Supreme Court judges]] over legal objections from the [[European Commission]]. In Turkey, thousands of judges were removed from their positions following a [[2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt|failed coup attempt]] during a [[2016–present purges in Turkey|government crackdown]] .<ref>{{Cite news|issn=0882-7729|title=As populism rises, fragile democracies move to weaken their courts|work=The Christian Science Monitor|access-date=14 November 2018|date=13 November 2018|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2018/1113/As-populism-rises-fragile-democracies-move-to-weaken-their-courts}}</ref>

[[File:Countries democratizing or autocratizing substantially and significantly 2010–2020.svg|thumb|Countries autocratising (red) or democratising (blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020). Countries in grey are substantially unchanged.<ref name="auto1">Nazifa Alizada, Rowan Cole, Lisa Gastaldi, Sandra Grahn, Sebastian Hellmeier, Palina Kolvani, Jean Lachapelle, Anna Lührmann, Seraphine F.    Maerz, Shreeya Pillai, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2021. Autocratization Turns Viral. Democracy Report 2021. University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf|date=14 September 2021 }}</ref>{{Update inline|date=March 2024}}{{Relevant|discuss=This map, at a glance, might be mistaken for countries that are or are not democracies (like all other maps) as opposed to trends|date=March 2024}}]]

"[[Democratic backsliding]]" in the 2010s were attributed to economic inequality and social discontent,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Greskovitz|first=Béla|date=2015|title=The Hollowing and Backsliding of Democracy in East-Central Europe|journal=Global Policy|volume=6|issue=1|pages=28–37|doi=10.1111/1758-5899.12225}}</ref> personalism,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Rhodes-Purdy|first1=Matthew|last2=Madrid|first2=Raúl L.|date=27 November 2019|title=The perils of personalism|journal=Democratization|volume=27|issue=2|pages=321–339|doi=10.1080/13510347.2019.1696310|s2cid=212974380|issn=1351-0347}}</ref> poor government's management of the [[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics|COVID-19 pandemic]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.idea.int/news-media/multimedia-reports/global-overview-covid-19-impact-elections|title=Global overview of COVID-19: Impact on elections|website=idea.int|access-date=28 January 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Democracy under Lockdown|publisher=Freedom House|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown|access-date=28 January 2021|first1=Sarah|last1=Repucci|first2=Amy|last2=Slipowitz}}</ref> as well as other factors such as manipulation of civil society, "toxic polarization", foreign disinformation campaigns,<ref name="2019VDem">{{Cite report|url=https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/99/de/99dedd73-f8bc-484c-8b91-44ba601b6e6b/v-dem_democracy_report_2019.pdf|title=Democracy Facing Global Challenges: V-Dem Annual Democracy Report 2019|publisher=V-Dem Institute at the [[University of Gothenburg]]|date=May 2019|access-date=26 April 2021|archive-date=5 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190605230333/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/99/de/99dedd73-f8bc-484c-8b91-44ba601b6e6b/v-dem_democracy_report_2019.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> racism and nativism, excessive executive power,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Mettler|first=Suzanne|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1155487679|title=Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy|publisher=St. Martin's Press|year=2020|isbn=978-1-250-24442-0|location=New York|oclc=1155487679}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=History tells us there are four key threats to U.S. democracy|author=Farrell, Henry|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=14 August 2020|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/14/history-tells-us-there-are-four-key-threats-us-democracy/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Lieberman|first=By Suzanne Mettler and Robert C.|date=10 August 2020|title=The Fragile Republic|url=https://reader.foreignaffairs.com/2020/08/10/the-fragile-republic/content.html|access-date=15 August 2020|website=Foreign Affairs}}</ref> and decreased power of the opposition.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Haggard|first1=Stephan|last2=Kaufman|first2=Robert|date=2021|title=Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/backsliding/CCD2F28FB63A56409FF8911351F2E937|access-date=21 January 2021|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/9781108957809|isbn=978-1-108-95780-9|s2cid=242013001}}</ref> Within English-speaking Western democracies, "protection-based" attitudes combining cultural conservatism and leftist economic attitudes were the strongest predictor of support for authoritarian modes of governance.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Malka|first1=Ariel|last2=Lelkes|first2=Yphtach|last3=Bakker|first3=Bert N.|last4=Spivack|first4=Eliyahu|date=2020|title=Who Is Open to Authoritarian Governance within Western Democracies?|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/who-is-open-to-authoritarian-governance-within-western-democracies/0ADCD5FFE5B7E9267E8283C7561FB6BE|journal=Perspectives on Politics|volume=20|issue=3|pages=808–827|doi=10.1017/S1537592720002091|s2cid=225207244|issn=1537-5927}}</ref>

==Theory<!--'Democratic theory' redirects here-->==

===Early theory===
[[Aristotle]] contrasted rule by the many (democracy/[[timocracy]]), with rule by the few ([[oligarchy]]/[[aristocracy]]), and with rule by a single person ([[tyranny]] or today [[autocracy]]/[[absolute monarchy]]). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to timocracy).<ref>{{cite web|title=Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, Chapter 10 (1160a.31-1161a.9)|url=http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.8.viii.html|access-date=21 June 2018|publisher=Internet Classics Archive}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aristotl.htm|title=Aristotle|encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

A common view among early and renaissance [[Republicanism|Republican]] theorists was that democracy could only survive in small political communities.<ref name=":0" /> Heeding the lessons of the Roman Republic's shift to monarchism as it grew larger or smaller, these Republican theorists held that the expansion of territory and population inevitably led to tyranny.<ref name=":0" /> Democracy was therefore highly fragile and rare historically, as it could only survive in small political units, which due to their size were vulnerable to conquest by larger political units.<ref name=":0" /> [[Montesquieu]] famously said, "if a republic is small, it is destroyed by an outside force; if it is large, it is destroyed by an internal vice."<ref name=":0" /> [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]] asserted, "It is, therefore the natural property of small states to be governed as a republic, of middling ones to be subject to a monarch, and of large empires to be swayed by a despotic prince."<ref name=":0" />

===Contemporary theory===
Among modern political theorists, there are three contending conceptions of democracy: ''aggregative democracy'', ''[[deliberative democracy]]'', and ''[[radical democracy]]''.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Springer|first1=Simon|year=2011|title=Public Space as Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism, Radical Democracy, Neoliberalism and Violence|url=https://www.academia.edu/354048|journal=Antipode|volume=43|issue=2|pages=525–62|doi=10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00827.x|bibcode=2011Antip..43..525S}}</ref>

====Aggregative====
The theory of ''aggregative democracy'' claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit citizens' preferences and aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on [[voting]], where the policy with the most votes gets implemented.

Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. Under ''minimalism'', democracy is a system of government in which citizens have given teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not "rule" because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. [[Joseph Schumpeter]] articulated this view most famously in his book ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy''.<ref>[[Joseph Schumpeter]], (1950). ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy''. Harper Perennial. {{ISBN|978-0-06-133008-7}}.</ref> Contemporary proponents of minimalism include [[William H. Riker]], [[Adam Przeworski]], [[Richard Posner]].

According to the theory of [[direct democracy]], on the other hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socialises and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.

Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are [[Median voter theorem|close to the views of the median voter]]—with half to their left and the other half to their right. This is not a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. [[Anthony Downs]] suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book ''An Economic Theory of Democracy''.<ref>[[Anthony Downs]], (1957). ''An Economic Theory of Democracy''. HarperCollins College. {{ISBN|978-0-06-041750-5}}.</ref>

[[Robert A. Dahl]] argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term [[polyarchy]] to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open [[elections]] which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.<ref>[[Robert A. Dahl|Dahl, Robert]], (1989). ''Democracy and its Critics''. New Haven: Yale University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-300-04938-1}}</ref> Similarly, [[Ronald Dworkin]] argues that "democracy is a substantive, not a merely procedural, ideal."<ref>Dworkin, Ronald (2006). ''Is Democracy Possible Here?'' Princeton: Princeton University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-691-13872-5}}, p. 134.</ref>

====Deliberative====
''[[Deliberative democracy]]'' is based on the notion that democracy is government by [[deliberation]]. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. ''Authentic deliberation'' is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.<ref>Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2002). ''Why Deliberative Democracy?'' Princeton University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-691-12019-5}}</ref><ref>Joshua Cohen, "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy" in Essays on Reason and Politics: Deliberative Democracy Ed. James Bohman and William Rehg (The MIT Press: Cambridge) 1997, 72–73.</ref><ref>Ethan J. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?", ''Buffalo Law Review'', Vol. 54, 2006</ref> If the decision-makers cannot reach [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule. [[Citizens' assemblies|Citizens assemblies]] are considered by many scholars as practical examples of deliberative democracy,<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Warren|first1=Mark E.|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/WARDDD-2|title=Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly|last2=Pearse|first2=Hilary|date=2008|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Suiter|first1=Jane|last2=Farrell|first2=David M|last3=O'Malley|first3=Eoin|date=1 March 2016|title=When do deliberative citizens change their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens' Assembly|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512114544068|journal=International Political Science Review|volume=37|issue=2|pages=198–212|doi=10.1177/0192512114544068|s2cid=155953192|issn=0192-5121}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Smith|first=Graham|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4|title=Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation|date=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-51477-4|series=Theories of Institutional Design|location=Cambridge}}</ref> with a recent [[OECD]] report identifying citizens assemblies as an increasingly popular mechanism to involve citizens in governmental decision-making.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave {{!}} en {{!}} OECD|url=https://www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions-339306da-en.htm|access-date=20 November 2020|website=oecd.org|date=9 June 2020}}</ref>

====Radical====
''[[Radical democracy]]'' is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision-making processes.

==Measurement of democracy==
{{anchor|Indices ranking degree of democracy}}

===Democracy indices===
{{Main|Democracy indices}}
[[File:Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2023.svg|alt=|thumb|The 2023 [[The Economist Democracy Index]] map
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-break}}
'''Full democracies'''
{{Legend|#0c3091|9.00–10.00}}
{{legend|#2f5cd5|8.00–8.99}}
{{Col-break}}
'''Flawed democracies'''
{{legend|#6bd2df|7.00–7.99}}
{{legend|#c3eded|6.00–6.99}}
{{Col-break}}
'''[[Hybrid regimes]]'''
{{legend|#f9f8bb|5.00–5.99}}
{{legend|#fad45d|4.00–4.99}}
{{Col-break}}
'''[[Authoritarian regimes]]'''
{{legend|#da820f|3.00–3.99}}
{{legend|#a8261f|2.00–2.99}}
{{legend|#66000f|1.00–1.99}}
{{legend|#240011|0.00–0.99}}
{{Col-end}}|upright=1.8]]
{{Excerpt|Democracy indices|only=paragraph|paragraph=1,2,3|hat=no}}
[[File:V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index 2023.svg|alt=|thumb|[[V-Dem Democracy Indices|V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index]] map for 2023<ref name="vdem report">{{Cite web|url=https://www.v-dem.net/documents/29/V-dem_democracyreport2023_lowres.pdf|title=Democracy Report 2023, Table 3, V-Dem Institute, 2023}}</ref>
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-break}}
{{Legend|#0c3091|0.900–1.000}}
{{legend|#2f5cd5|0.800–0.899}}
{{legend|#6bd2df|0.700–0.799}}
{{legend|#c3eded|0.600–0.699}}
{{Col-break}}
{{legend|#f9f8bb|0.500–0.599}}
{{legend|#fad45d|0.400–0.499}}
{{legend|#da820f|0.300–0.399}}
{{legend|#a8261f|0.200–0.299}}
{{Col-break}}
{{legend|#66000f|0.100–0.199}}
{{legend|#240011|0.000–0.099}}
{{legend|#c0c0c0|No data}}
{{Col-end}}|upright=1.5]]

====Difficulties in measuring democracy====
{{Main|Democracy indices#Difficulties in measuring democracy}}
{{Excerpt|Democracy indices#Difficulties in measuring democracy|only=paragraph|paragraph=1|hat=no}}

==Types of governmental democracies==
{{Main|Types of democracy}}

Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.<ref>G.F. Gaus, C. Kukathas, ''Handbook of Political Theory'', SAGE, 2004, pp.&nbsp;143–45, {{ISBN|978-0-7619-6787-3}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=RGisaLxA6eMC Google Books link]</ref><ref>''The Judge in a Democracy'', Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 26, {{ISBN|978-0-691-12017-1}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX7mAbjGOYC Google Books link]</ref> However, if any democracy is not structured to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the [[separation of powers]] in its favour, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.<ref>A. Barak, ''The Judge in a Democracy'', Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 40, {{ISBN|978-0-691-12017-1}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX7mAbjGOYC Google Books link]</ref><ref>T.R. Williamson, ''Problems in American Democracy'', Kessinger Publishing, 2004, p. 36, {{ISBN|978-1-4191-4316-8}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=NrUlR8nc9Q8C Google Books link]</ref><ref>U.K. Preuss, "Perspectives of Democracy and the Rule of Law". ''Journal of Law and Society'', 18:3 (1991). pp. 353–64</ref>

{{Systems of government|center|2=upright=2.5}}

The following kinds of democracy are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system.

===Basic forms===
Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is [[direct democracy]], in which all eligible citizens have active participation in the political decision making, for example voting on policy initiatives directly.<ref>{{cite book|author=Budge, Ian|chapter=Direct democracy|editor=Clarke, Paul A.B.|editor2=Foweraker, Joe|title=Encyclopedia of Political Thought|publisher=Taylor & Francis|year=2001|isbn=978-0-415-19396-2|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=srzDCqnZkfUC&pg=PA224}}</ref> In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called a [[representative democracy]].

====Direct====
{{Main|Direct democracy}}
[[File:Landsgemeinde Glarus, 2009.jpg|thumb|A [[Landsgemeinde]] (in 2009) of the [[canton of Glarus]], an example of direct democracy in Switzerland]]
[[File:Swiss voting material.jpg|thumb|In [[Voting in Switzerland|Switzerland]], without needing to register, every citizen receives [[ballot papers]] and information brochures for each vote (and can send it back by post). Switzerland has a [[direct democracy]] system and votes (and elections) are organised about four times a year; here, to [[Bern#Politics|Berne]]'s citizen in November 2008 about 5 national, 2 cantonal, 4 municipal referendums, and 2 elections (government and parliament of the City of Berne) to take care of at the same time.]]

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:
* Change constitutional laws,
* Put forth [[Popular initiative|initiative]]s, [[referendum]]s and suggestions for laws

Within modern-day representative governments, certain electoral tools like referendums, citizens' initiatives and [[recall election]]s are referred to as forms of direct democracy.<ref>Beramendi, Virginia, and Jennifer Somalie. Angeyo. ''Direct Democracy: The International Idea Handbook''. Stockholm, Sweden: International IDEA, 2008. Print.</ref> However, some advocates of direct democracy argue for local assemblies of face-to-face discussion. Direct democracy as a government system currently exists in the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] [[Cantons of Switzerland|cantons]] of [[Canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden|Appenzell Innerrhoden]] and [[Canton of Glarus|Glarus]],<ref name="Golay" /> the [[Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities]],<ref>Niels Barmeyer, ''Developing Zapatista Autonomy'', Chapter Three: Who is Running the Show? The Workings of Zapatista Government.</ref> communities affiliated with the [[CIPO-RFM]],<ref>{{Cite book|title=Teaching Rebellion: Stories from the Grassroots Mobilization in Oaxaca|last=Denham|first=Diana|year=2008}}</ref> the [[Bolivia]]n city councils of [[Fejuve|FEJUVE]],<ref>{{Cite book|title=Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces in Latin America|last=Zibechi|first=Raul|year=2013}}</ref> and Kurdish cantons of [[Rojava]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rudaw.net/english/opinion/29012015|title=A Very Different Ideology in the Middle East|publisher=Rudaw}}</ref>

=====Semi-direct=====
Some modern democracies that are predominantly representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of political action that are directly democratic. These democracies, which combine elements of representative democracy and direct democracy, are termed ''semi-direct democracies'' or ''participatory democracies''. Examples include Switzerland and some [[U.S. state]]s, where frequent use is made of [[referendum]]s and [[initiatives]].

The [[Swiss confederation]] is a semi-direct democracy.<ref name="Golay" /> At the federal level, citizens can propose changes to the constitution ([[federal popular initiative]]) or ask for a [[Optional referendum|referendum]] to be held on any law voted by the [[Federal Assembly (Switzerland)|parliament]].<ref name="Golay" /> Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, to answer 103 questions (during the same period, French citizens participated in only two referendums).<ref name="Golay" /> Although in the past 120 years less than 250 initiatives have been put to referendum.<ref>{{Citation|last=Serdült|first=Uwe|title=Referendums in Switzerland|date=2014|url=https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314703_4|work=Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy|pages=65–121|editor-last=Qvortrup|editor-first=Matt|place=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|doi=10.1057/9781137314703_4|isbn=978-1-137-31470-3|access-date=2022-06-17}}</ref>

Examples include the extensive use of [[referendum]]s in the US state of [[California]], which is a state that has more than 20 million voters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3985561|title=Article on direct democracy by Imraan Buccus|publisher=Themercury.co.za|access-date=22 August 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100117121519/http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3985561|archive-date=17 January 2010}}</ref>

In [[New England]], [[town meeting]]s are often used, especially in rural areas, to manage local government. This creates a hybrid form of government, with a local [[direct democracy]] and a representative state government. For example, most [[Vermont]] towns hold annual town meetings in March in which town officers are elected, budgets for the town and schools are voted on, and citizens have the opportunity to speak and be heard on political matters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sec.state.vt.us/townmeeting/citizens_guide.html|title=A Citizen's Guide To Vermont Town Meeting|date=July 2008|access-date=12 October 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120805023214/http://www.sec.state.vt.us/TownMeeting/citizens_guide.html|archive-date=5 August 2012}}</ref>

=====Lot system=====
The use of a lot system, a characteristic of [[Athenian democracy]], is a feature of some versions of direct democracies. In this system, important governmental and administrative tasks are performed by citizens picked from a lottery.<ref name ="Manin 1997">{{cite book|author=Manin, Bernard|title=Principles of Representative Government|year=1997|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=8–11|s2cid=153766786|url=http://www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/96019710.html}}</ref>

====Representative====
{{Main|Representative democracy}}

Representative democracy involves the election of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also [[Democratically elected government|democratically elected]] then it is called a democratic [[republic]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REV/RADICAL.HTM|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990203212816/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REV/RADICAL.HTM|archive-date=3 February 1999|title=Radical Revolution – The Thermidorean Reaction|publisher=Wsu.edu|date=6 June 1999|access-date=22 August 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref> The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a [[Plurality (voting)|plurality]] of the votes. Most western countries have representative systems.<ref name="Golay" />

Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or [[constituency]]), or represent the entire electorate through [[Proportional representation|proportional]] systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as [[referendum]]s.<ref name=":212">{{Cite book|last1=Black|first1=Jeremy|title=World History|last2=Brewer|first2=Paul|last3=Shaw|first3=Anthony|last4=Chandler|first4=Malcolm|last5=Cheshire|first5=Gerard|last6=Cranfield|first6=Ingrid|last7=Ralph Lewis|first7=Brenda|last8=Sutherland|first8=Joe|last9=Vint|first9=Robert|publisher=Parragon Books|year=2003|isbn=0-75258-227-5|location=[[Bath, Somerset]]|pages=341|author-link=Jeremy Black (historian)}}</ref> A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as how best to do so. Such reasons have driven criticism upon representative democracy,<ref>{{cite book|last=Köchler|first=Hans|title=The Crisis of Representative Democracy|publisher=Frankfurt/M., Bern, New York|isbn=978-3-8204-8843-2|year=1987}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Urbinati|first=Nadia|title=Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy|isbn=978-0-226-84279-0|date=1 October 2008|chapter=2|publisher=University of Chicago Press}}</ref> pointing out the contradictions of representation mechanisms with democracy<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fenichel Pitkin|first=Hanna|s2cid=154048078|title=Representation and democracy: uneasy alliance|journal=[[Scandinavian Political Studies]]|volume=27|issue=3|pages=335–42|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9477.2004.00109.x|date=September 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Aristotle|title=Politics|volume=Book 4|chapter=Ch. 9}}</ref>

=====Parliamentary=====
{{Main|Parliamentary system}}

Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by or can be dismissed by, representatives as opposed to a "presidential rule" wherein the president is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.<ref>Keen, Benjamin, A History of Latin America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980.</ref><ref>Kuykendall, Ralph, Hawaii: A History. New York: Prentice Hall, 1948.</ref><ref>Brown, Charles H., The Correspondents' War. New York: [[Charles Scribner's Sons]], 1967.</ref><ref>Taussig, Capt. J. K., "Experiences during the Boxer Rebellion," in Quarterdeck and Fo'c'sle. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963</ref>

In a parliamentary system, the prime minister may be dismissed by the legislature at any point in time for not meeting the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a vote of no confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the prime minister from office with majority support for dismissal.<ref name="O'Neil, Patrick H 2010" /> In some countries, the prime minister can also call an election at any point in time, typically when the prime minister believes that they are in good favour with the public as to get re-elected. In other parliamentary democracies, extra elections are virtually never held, a minority government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. An important feature of the parliamentary democracy is the concept of the "[[loyal opposition]]". The essence of the concept is that the second largest political party (or opposition) opposes the governing party (or coalition), while still remaining loyal to the state and its democratic principles.

=====Presidential=====
{{Main|Presidential system}}

Presidential democracy is a system where the public elects the president through an election. The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. The legislature often has limited ability to remove a president from office. Elections typically have a fixed date and aren't easily changed. The president has direct control over the cabinet, specifically appointing the cabinet members.<ref name="O'Neil, Patrick H 2010" />

The executive usually has the responsibility to execute or implement legislation and may have the limited legislative powers, such as a veto. However, a legislative branch passes legislation and budgets. This provides some measure of [[separation of powers]]. In consequence, however, the president and the legislature may end up in the control of separate parties, allowing one to block the other and thereby interfere with the orderly operation of the state. This may be the reason why presidential democracy is not very common outside the Americas, Africa, and Central and Southeast Asia.<ref name="O'Neil, Patrick H 2010" />

A [[semi-presidential system]] is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. The particular powers held by the prime minister and president vary by country.<ref name="O'Neil, Patrick H 2010" />

===Typology===

====Constitutional monarchy====
{{Main|Constitutional monarchy}}
[[File:King Charles III (July 2023).jpg|thumb|upright|King [[Charles III]], a constitutional monarch]]

Many countries such as the [[United Kingdom]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Scandinavia|Scandinavian countries]], [[Thailand]], [[Japan]] and [[Bhutan]] turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs (often gradually) with limited or symbolic roles. For example, in the predecessor states to the United Kingdom, constitutional monarchy began to emerge and has continued uninterrupted since the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688 and passage of the [[Bill of Rights 1689]].<ref name="Kopstein2014" /><ref name="refNARoP" /> Strongly limited constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, have been referred to as [[crowned republic]]s by writers such as [[H. G. Wells]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=64. The British Empire in 1914. Wells, H.G. 1922. A Short History of the World|url=https://www.bartleby.com/86/64.html|access-date=8 January 2022|website=bartleby.com}}</ref>

In other countries, the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in [[France]], [[China]], [[Russia]], [[Germany]], [[Austria]], [[Hungary]], [[Italy]], [[Greece]], and [[Egypt]]). An elected person, with or without significant powers, became the head of state in these countries.

Elite upper houses of legislatures, which often had lifetime or hereditary tenure, were common in many states. Over time, these either had their powers limited (as with the British [[House of Lords]]) or else became elective and remained powerful (as with the [[Australian Senate]]).

====Republic====
{{Main|Republicanism}}

The term ''[[republic]]'' has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected [[head of state]], such as a [[President (government title)|president]], serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary [[monarch]] as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed [[head of government]] such as a [[Prime Minister|prime minister]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/republic|title=Republic – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary|publisher=M-W.com|date=25 April 2007|access-date=22 August 2010}}</ref>

The [[Founding Fathers of the United States]] often criticised [[direct democracy]], which in their view often came without the protection of a constitution enshrining inalienable rights; [[James Madison]] argued, especially in [[Federalist No. 10|''The Federalist'' No. 10]], that what distinguished a direct ''democracy'' from a ''republic'' was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.<ref name="Federalist10">{{cite web|title=The Federalist Papers : No. 10|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp|work=[[Avalon Project]]|date=29 December 1998|access-date=7 January 2022}}</ref>

Professors Richard Ellis of [[Willamette University]] and Michael Nelson of [[Rhodes College]] argue that much constitutional thought, from Madison to Lincoln and beyond, has focused on "the problem of majority tyranny". They conclude, "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to ensure that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be trampled by majorities."<ref>Richard J. Ellis and Michael Nelson, ''Debating the presidency'' (2009) p. 211</ref> What was critical to American values, [[John Adams]] insisted,<ref>Novanglus, no. 7. 6 March 1775</ref> was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the US Constitution, [[Elizabeth Willing Powel]]<ref name="Brockell">{{cite news|last1=Brockell|first1=Gillian|title='A republic, if you can keep it': Did Ben Franklin really say Impeachment Day's favorite quote?|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/12/18/republic-if-you-can-keep-it-did-ben-franklin-really-say-impeachment-days-favorite-quote/|access-date=20 January 2021|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=19 December 2019}}</ref> asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18I.html|title=''The Founders' Constitution: Volume 1, Chapter 18, Introduction'', "Epilogue: Securing the Republic"|publisher=Press-pubs.uchicago.edu|access-date=22 August 2010}}</ref>

====Liberal====
{{Main|Liberal democracy}}

A liberal democracy is a representative democracy which enshrines a [[liberalism|liberal]] [[political philosophy]], where the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the [[rule of law]], moderated by a constitution or laws that such as the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and constrained on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.

====Socialist====
{{Main|Socialist democracy|Social democracy|Democratic socialism}}

[[Socialism|Socialist]] thought has several different views on democracy. [[Social democracy]], [[democratic socialism]], and the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of [[participatory democracy|participatory]], [[industrial democracy|industrial]], [[economic democracy|economic]] and/or [[workplace democracy]] combined with a [[representative democracy]].

[[Trotskyist]] groups have interpreted socialist democracy to be synonymous with [[multi-party]] [[Far-left politics|socialist]] representation, [[economic democracy|autonomous union organizations]], [[worker's control|worker's control of production]],<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wiles|first1=Peter|title=The Soviet Economy on the Brink of Reform: Essays in Honor of Alec Nove|date=14 June 2023|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-000-88190-5|page=31|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mHAIEQAAQBAJ&dq=trotsky+legalization+of+soviet+parties+worker+control+of+production&pg=PA31}}</ref> internal party democracy and the [[worker self-management|mass participation of the working masses]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Mandel|first1=Ernest|title=Trotsky as Alternative|date=5 May 2020|publisher=Verso Books|isbn=978-1-78960-701-7|pages=84–86|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xVmcEAAAQBAJ&dq=trotsky+as+alternative+mandel&pg=PT80}}</ref><ref name="Pathfinder Press">{{cite book|last1=Trotsky|first1=Leon|title=The Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution: Including The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International|date=1977|publisher=Pathfinder Press|isbn=978-0-87348-524-1|pages=145–146|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rL8gAQAAIAAJ&q=the+transitional+program+trotsky}}</ref>

====Marxist====
{{See also|Democracy in Marxism}}

Within [[Democracy in Marxist theory|Marxist orthodoxy]] there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which is referred to as parliamentary democracy because of its centralised nature. Because of orthodox Marxists' desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, [[Marxism|Marxists]], [[Leninism|Leninists]], and [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]] believe in direct democracy implemented through a system of communes (which are sometimes called [[Soviet (council)|soviets]]). This system can begin with workplace democracy and ultimately manifests itself as [[council democracy]].

====Anarchist====
[[Anarchism|Anarchists]] are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a [[Tyranny of the majority|majority-rule is tyrannic or not]]. To many anarchists, the only form of democracy considered acceptable is direct democracy. [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]] argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognised that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.<ref>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. ''General Idea of the Revolution'' See also commentary by [[Robert Graham (historian)|Graham, Robert]]. [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/proudhon/grahamproudhon.html ''The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution'']</ref> However, [[anarcho-communist]] [[Murray Bookchin]] criticised [[individualist anarchists]] for opposing democracy,<ref>Bookchin, Murray. Communalism: The Democratic Dimensions of Social Anarchism. Anarchism, Marxism and the Future of the Left: Interviews and Essays, 1993–1998, AK Press 1999, p. 155</ref> and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.<ref>Bookchin, Murray. [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/soclife.html Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm]</ref>

Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt-in favour of a non-majoritarian form of [[consensus democracy]], similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.<ref>Graeber, David and Grubacic, Andrej. ''Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement of the Twenty-first Century''</ref>

====Sortition====
{{Main|Sortition}}

[[Sortition]] is the process of choosing decision-making bodies via a random selection. These bodies can be more representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large than an elected legislature or other decision-maker. The technique was in widespread use in [[Athenian Democracy]] and [[Republic of Florence|Renaissance Florence]]<ref>{{cite book|last1=Dowlen|first1=Oliver|title=The Political Potential of Sortition: A study of the random selection of citizens for public office|date=2008|publisher=Imprint Academic}}</ref> and is still used in modern [[jury selection]] and [[Citizens' assembly|citizens' assemblies]].

====Consociational====
{{Main|Consociational democracy}}

Consociational democracy, also called [[consociationalism]], is a form of democracy based on power-sharing formula between elites representing the social groups within the society. In 1969, Arendt Lijphart argued this would stabilize democracies with factions.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Arend|first=Lijphart|date=January 1969|title=Consociational Democracy|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/abs/consociational-democracy/BB47BF2A5A4EBAE341FD3FA4E262410F|journal=World Politics|volume=21|issue=2|pages=207–225|doi=10.2307/2009820|jstor=2009820|s2cid=251572712}}</ref> A consociational democracy allows for simultaneous majority votes in two or more ethno-religious constituencies, and policies are enacted only if they gain majority support from both or all of them. The [[Qualified majority voting]] rule in [[European Council of Ministers]] is a consociational democracy approach for supranational democracies. This system in [[Treaty of Rome]] allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. A consociational democracy requires consensus of representatives, while consensus democracy requires consensus of electorate.{{update inline|date=February 2024|reason=The only source cited is from 1969 – needs update on the latest scholarship regarding how these experiments have or have not worked}}

====Consensus====
{{Main|Consensus democracy}}

Consensus democracy<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414012463883|title=The Calculus of Consensus Democracy: Rethinking Patterns of Democracy Without Veto Players|first1=Anthony J.|last1=McGann|first2=Michael|last2=Latner|date=16 July 2013|journal=Comparative Political Studies|volume=46|issue=7|pages=823–850|via=CrossRef|doi=10.1177/0010414012463883}}</ref> requires [[consensus decision-making]] and [[supermajority]] to obtain a larger support than [[majority]]. In contrast, in [[majoritarian democracy]] minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09512748.2022.2035426|title=The shift to consensus democracy and limits of institutional design in Asia|first1=Yuko|last1=Kasuya|first2=Benjamin|last2=Reilly|date=4 July 2023|journal=The Pacific Review|volume=36|issue=4|pages=844–870|via=CrossRef|doi=10.1080/09512748.2022.2035426}}</ref> [[Constitution]]s typically require consensus or supermajorities.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/shclj8&i=371|title=Redirecting...|website=heinonline.org}}</ref>

====Ethnic====
{{Excerpt|Ethnic democracy|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs}}

====Inclusive====
{{Main|Inclusive democracy}}

Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for [[direct democracy]] in all fields of social life: political democracy in the form of face-to-face assemblies which are confederated, [[economic democracy]] in a [[Stateless society|stateless]], moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social realm, i.e. [[Workers' self-management|self-management]] in places of work and education, and ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of political philosopher [[Takis Fotopoulos]] in "Towards An Inclusive Democracy" and was further developed in the journal ''[[Democracy & Nature]]'' and its successor ''The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy''.

====Participatory====
{{Main|Participatory politics}}

A [[parpolity]] or participatory polity is a theoretical form of democracy that is ruled by a [[Parpolity|nested council]] structure. The guiding philosophy is that people should have decision-making power in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision. Local councils of 25–50 people are completely autonomous on issues that affect only them, and these councils send delegates to higher level councils who are again autonomous regarding issues that affect only the population affected by that council.

A council court of randomly chosen citizens serves as a check on the [[tyranny of the majority]], and rules on which body gets to vote on which issue. Delegates may vote differently from how their sending council might wish but are mandated to communicate the wishes of their sending council. Delegates are recallable at any time. Referendums are possible at any time via votes of lower-level councils, however, not everything is a referendum as this is most likely a waste of time. A parpolity is meant to work in tandem with a [[participatory economy]].

====Religious====
{{Excerpt|Religious democracy|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs}}

====Cosmopolitan====
{{Main|Cosmopolitan democracy}}

Cosmopolitan democracy, also known as ''global democracy'' or ''world federalism'', is a political system in which democracy is implemented on a global scale, either directly or through representatives. An important justification for this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or regional democracies often affect people outside the constituency who, by definition, cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy, the people who are affected by decisions also have a say in them.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.danielearchibugi.org/downloads/papers/CD_and_critics_A_review.pdf|title=Article on Cosmopolitan democracy by Daniele Archibugi|access-date=22 August 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220629/http://www.danielearchibugi.org/downloads/papers/CD_and_critics_A_review.pdf|archive-date=25 July 2011}}</ref>

According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global problems is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan democracy. The general principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law; the non-violent resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond the limits of the state. To be fully implemented, this would require reforming existing [[international organisations]], e.g., the [[United Nations]], as well as the creation of new institutions such as a [[World Parliament]], which ideally would enhance public control over, and accountability in, international politics.

Cosmopolitan democracy has been promoted, among others, by physicist Albert Einstein,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html|title=letter by Einstein – "To the General Assembly of the United Nations"|access-date=2 July 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130510174259/http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html|archive-date=10 May 2013|url-status=dead}}, first published in United Nations World New York, October 1947, pp. 13–14</ref> writer Kurt Vonnegut, columnist [[George Monbiot]], and professors [[David Held]] and [[Daniele Archibugi]].<ref>Daniele Archibugi & David Held, eds., ''Cosmopolitan Democracy. An Agenda for a New World Order'', Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995; David Held, ''Democracy and the Global Order'', Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995, Daniele Archibugi, [http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8737.html ''The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy''], Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008</ref> The creation of the [[International Criminal Court]] in 2003 was seen as a major step forward by many supporters of this type of cosmopolitan democracy.

====Creative====
{{Main|Creative democracy}}

Creative democracy is advocated by American philosopher [[John Dewey]]. The main idea about creative democracy is that democracy encourages individual capacity building and the interaction among the society. Dewey argues that democracy is a way of life in his work of "Creative Democracy: The Task Before Us"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/dewey/dewey_creative_democracy.pdf|title=Creative Democracy – The Task Before Us|access-date=12 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212175652/http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/dewey/dewey_creative_democracy.pdf|archive-date=12 February 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref> and an experience built on faith in human nature, faith in human beings, and faith in working with others. Democracy, in Dewey's view, is a [[Morality|moral ideal]] requiring actual effort and work by people; it is not an institutional concept that exists outside of ourselves. "The task of democracy", Dewey concludes, "is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute".

====Guided====
{{Main|Guided democracy}}
[[File:Democracy claims.svg|thumb|upright=1.4|'''Green:''' countries that claim to be a democracy '''Red:''' countries that do not claim to be democratic (only [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Oman]], the [[United Arab Emirates|UAE]], [[Qatar]], [[Brunei]], [[Afghanistan]], and the [[Vatican City|Vatican]] do not claim to be democratic as of 2022){{citation needed|date=February 2024}}]]

Guided democracy is a form of democracy that incorporates regular popular elections, but which often carefully "guides" the choices offered to the electorate in a manner that may reduce the ability of the electorate to truly determine the type of government exercised over them. Such democracies typically have only one central authority which is often not subject to meaningful public review by any other governmental authority. Russian-style democracy has often been referred to as a "guided democracy".<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/17149/pdf|doi=10.1353/jod.2001.0063|title=From Democratization to &quot;Guided Democracy&quot|year=2001|last1=Brown|first1=Archie|journal=Journal of Democracy|volume=12|issue=4|pages=35–41|s2cid=201790528}}</ref> Russian politicians have referred to their government as having only one center of power/ authority, as opposed to most other forms of democracy which usually attempt to incorporate two or more naturally competing sources of authority within the same government.<ref>[http://www.russialist.org/archives/2009-35-32.php Putin's Rule: Its Main Features and the Current Diarchy] Johnson's [[Russia]] List. By Peter Reddaway. 18 February 2009. Downloaded 28 April 2017.</ref>

==Non-governmental democracy==
Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other kinds of groups. Many [[non-governmental organisation]]s decide policy and leadership by voting. Most [[trade union]]s and [[cooperative]]s are governed by democratic elections. [[Corporation]]s are ultimately governed by their [[shareholder]]s through [[shareholder democracy]]. Corporations may also employ systems such as [[workplace democracy]] to handle internal governance. [[Amitai Etzioni]] has postulated a system that fuses elements of democracy with [[sharia law]], termed ''[[wikt:Islamocracy|Islamocracy]]''.<ref>Compare: {{cite book|last1=Tibi|first1=Bassam|title=The Sharia State: Arab Spring and Democratization|date=2013|page=161|publisher=Routledge|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uXAdAAAAQBAJ|isbn=978-1-135-92468-3}}</ref> There is also a growing number of [[Democratic education]]al institutions such as [[Sudbury school]]s that are co-governed by students and staff.

===Shareholder democracy===
{{Main|Shareholder democracy}}

Shareholder democracy is a concept relating to the governance of corporations by their shareholders. In the United States, shareholders are typically granted voting rights according to the [[one share, one vote]] principle. Shareholders may vote annually to elect the company's [[board of directors]], who themselves may choose the company's [[Chief executive officer|executives]]. The shareholder democracy framework may be inaccurate for companies which have different [[Share class|classes of stock]] that further alter the distribution of voting rights.

==Justification==
Several justifications for democracy have been postulated.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gerring|first1=John|last2=Knutsen|first2=Carl Henrik|last3=Berge|first3=Jonas|title=Does Democracy Matter?|journal=[[Annual Review of Political Science]]|date=2022|volume=25|pages=357–375|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-060820-060910|doi-access=free|hdl=10852/100947|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

===Legitimacy===
[[Social contract|Social contract theory]] argues that the [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimacy of government]] is based on [[consent of the governed]], i.e. an election, and that political decisions must reflect the [[general will]]. Some proponents of the theory like [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] advocate for a [[direct democracy]] on this basis.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Friend|first=Celeste|date=n.d.|title=Social Contract Theory|url=https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/|access-date=26 April 2022|website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

===Better decision-making===
[[Condorcet's jury theorem]] is logical proof that if each decision-maker has a better than chance probability of making the right decision, then having the largest number of decision-makers, i.e. a democracy, will result in the best decisions. This has also been argued by theories of [[Wisdom of the crowd|the wisdom of the crowd]]. Democracy tends to improve [[conflict resolution]].<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002793037001002|doi=10.1177/0022002793037001002|title=Democracy and the Management of International Conflict|date=1993|last1=Dixon|first1=William J.|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=37|pages=42–68}}</ref>

===Economic success===
{{Main|Democracy and economic growth}}

In ''[[Why Nations Fail]]'', economists [[Daron Acemoglu]] and [[James A. Robinson (economist)|James A. Robinson]] argue that democracies are more economically successful because undemocratic political systems tend to limit markets and favor [[Monopoly|monopolies]] at the expense of the [[creative destruction]] which is necessary for sustained [[economic growth]].

A 2019 study by Acemoglu and others estimated that countries switching to democratic from authoritarian rule had on average a 20% higher GDP after 25 years than if they had remained authoritarian. The study examined 122 transitions to democracy and 71 transitions to authoritarian rule, occurring from 1960 to 2010.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Democracy Does Cause Growth|author1=Daron Acemoglu|author2=Suresh Naidu|author3=Pascual Restrepo|author4=James A. Robinson|journal=Journal of Political Economy|volume=127|number=1|date=February 2019|pages=47–100|doi=10.1086/700936|hdl=1721.1/124287|s2cid=222452675|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w20004.pdf|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Acemoglu said this was because democracies tended to invest more in health care and human capital, and reduce special treatment of regime allies.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/24/135720/democracy-dividend/|title=Democracy dividend|magazine=[[Technology Review]] MIT News|author=Peter Dizikes|date=24 April 2019|page=03}}</ref>

A 2023 study analyzed the long-term effects of democracy on economic prosperity using new data on GDP per capita and democracy for a dataset between 1789 and 2019. The results indicate that democracy substantially increases economic development.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pelke|first1=Lars|title=Reanalysing the link between democracy and economic development|journal=[[International Area Studies Review]]|date=2023|volume=26|issue=4|pages=361–383|doi=10.1177/22338659231194945|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==Democracy promotion==
{{Excerpt|Democracy promotion}}
[[File:Hong Kong P1066634 (48678676473).jpg|thumb|Banner in Hong Kong asking for democracy, August 2019]]

Democracy promotion can increase the quality of already existing democracies, reduce [[political apathy]], and the chance of democratic backsliding. Democracy promotion measures include [[voting advice application]]s,<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1526237|doi=10.1080/10584609.2018.1526237|title=Getting Out the Vote with Voting Advice Applications|year=2019|last1=Germann|first1=Micha|last2=Gemenis|first2=Kostas|journal=Political Communication|volume=36|pages=149–170|s2cid=149640396}}</ref> [[participatory democracy]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/10/20/book-review-against-elections-the-case-for-democracy-by-david-van-reybrouck/|title=Book Review: Against Elections: The Case for Democracy by David Van Reybrouck|date=20 October 2016|access-date=2019-03-10}}</ref> increasing [[youth suffrage]], increasing civic education,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wong|first=Alia|date=2018-10-05|title=Civics Education Helps Create Young Voters and Activists|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/civics-education-helps-form-young-voters-and-activists/572299/|access-date=2020-09-17|website=The Atlantic}}</ref> reducing [[barriers to entry]] for new political parties,<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1816288|jstor=1816288|last1=Tullock|first1=Gordon|title=Entry Barriers in Politics|journal=The American Economic Review|year=1965|volume=55|issue=1/2|pages=458–466}}</ref> increasing [[proportional representation|proportionality]]<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000161|doi=10.1017/S0007123408000161|title=Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour|year=2008|last1=Karp|first1=Jeffrey A.|last2=Banducci|first2=Susan A.|journal=British Journal of Political Science|volume=38|issue=2|pages=311–334|hdl=10036/64393|s2cid=55486399|hdl-access=free}}</ref> and reducing [[presidential system|presidentialism]].<ref>{{Cite book|editor-last1=Hawkins|editor-first1=Kirk Andrew|editor-last2=Carlin|editor-first2=Ryan E.|editor-last3=Littvay|editor-first3=Levente|editor-last4=Rovira Kaltwasser|editor-first4=Cristóbal|title=The ideational approach to populism: concept, theory, and analysis|isbn=978-1-315-19692-3|pages=281|oclc=1053623603}}</ref>

==Democratic transitions==
{{Main|Democratic transition}}
[[File:Number of countries experiencing autocratization and democratization, 1900–2000.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Since {{circa|2010}}, the [[Democratic backsliding by country|number of countries autocratizing]] (blue) is higher than those [[democratizing]] (yellow).]]

A democratic transition describes a phase in a country's [[political system]], often created as a result of an incomplete change from an [[authoritarian]] regime to a democratic one (or vice versa).<ref name="Arugay 2021 pp. 1–7">{{cite book|last=Arugay|first=Aries A.|title=The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies|chapter=Democratic Transitions|publisher=Springer International Publishing|publication-place=Cham|year=2021|isbn=978-3-319-74336-3|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_190-1|pages=1–7|s2cid=240235199}}</ref><ref name="Munck 2001 pp. 3425–3428">{{cite book|last=Munck|first=G.L.|title=International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences|chapter=Democratic Transitions|publisher=Elsevier|year=2001|doi=10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/01135-9|pages=3425–3428|isbn=978-0-08-043076-8}}</ref>

===Democratization===
{{Main|Democratization}}
{{Excerpt|Democratization|only=paragraph|hat=no}}

Several philosophers and researchers have outlined historical and social factors seen as supporting the evolution of democracy. Other commentators have mentioned the influence of economic development.<ref>For example: {{Cite journal|doi=10.2307/1951731|author=Lipset, Seymour Martin.|s2cid=53686238|year=1959|title=Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy|journal=American Political Science Review|volume=53|issue=1|pages=69–105|jstor=1951731}}</ref> In a related theory, [[Ronald Inglehart]] suggests that improved living-standards in modern developed countries can convince people that they can take their basic survival for granted, leading to increased emphasis on [[self-expression values]], which correlates closely with democracy.<ref>Inglehart, Ronald. Welzel, Christian ''Modernisation, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence'', 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Inglehart|first1=Ronald F.|title=Cultural Evolution: People's Motivations Are Changing, and Reshaping the World|date=2018|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/9781108613880|isbn=978-1-108-61388-0}}</ref>

Douglas M. Gibler and Andrew Owsiak in their study argued about the importance of peace and stable borders for the development of democracy. It has often been assumed that [[democratic peace theory|democracy causes peace]], but this study shows that, historically, peace has almost always predated the establishment of democracy.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gibler|first1=Douglas M.|last2=Owsiak|first2=Andrew|title=Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders, 1919–2001|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=62|issue=9|pages=1847–75|date=2017|doi=10.1177/0022002717708599|s2cid=158036471}}</ref>

[[Carroll Quigley]] concludes that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy:<ref>Foreword, written by historian [http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/index.xml Harry J Hogan] {{webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130901040610/http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/index.xml |date= 1 September 2013}} in 1982, to Quigley's ''Weapons Systems and Political Stability''</ref><ref>see also Chester G Starr, Review of ''Weapons Systems and Political Stability'', American Historical Review, Feb 1984, p. 98, available at [http://www.carrollquigley.net/book-reviews/Review-of-Weapons-Systems-Political-Stability-Starr.htm carrollquigley.net]</ref> Democracy—this scenario—tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to obtain and use.<ref name="Quigley1983-38" /> By the 1800s, guns were the best personal weapons available, and in the United States of America (already nominally democratic), almost everyone could afford to buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily. Governments could not do any better: it became the age of mass armies of citizen soldiers with guns.<ref name="Quigley1983-38" /> Similarly, Periclean Greece was an age of the citizen soldier and democracy.<ref>{{cite book|author=Carroll Quigley|title=Weapons systems and political stability: a history|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L6e2AAAAIAAJ|access-date=20 May 2013|year=1983|publisher=University Press of America|isbn=978-0-8191-2947-5|page=307}}</ref>

Other theories stressed the relevance of [[education]] and of [[human capital]]—and within them of [[intelligence|cognitive ability]] to increasing tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and cognitive ability are distinguished:<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Glaeser|first1=E.|last2=Ponzetto|first2=G.|last3=Shleifer|first3=A.|year=2007|title=Why does democracy need education?|url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27867132|journal=Journal of Economic Growth|volume=12|issue=2|pages=77–99|doi=10.1007/s10887-007-9015-1|access-date=3 July 2017}}</ref>{{request quotation|date=August 2018}}<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Deary|first1=I.J.|last2=Batty|first2=G.D.|last3=Gale|first3=C.R.|year=2008|title=Bright children become enlightened adults|url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/8896064/bright_children_become_enlightened_adults.pdf|journal=Psychological Science|volume=19|issue=1|pages=1–6|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02036.x|pmid=18181782|s2cid=21297949|hdl=20.500.11820/a86dbef4-60eb-44fa-add3-513841cdf81b|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>Compare: {{cite journal|last1=Rindermann|first1=H|year=2008|title=Relevance of education and intelligence for the political development of nations: Democracy, rule of law and political liberty|journal=Intelligence|volume=36|issue=4|pages=306–22|doi=10.1016/j.intell.2007.09.003|quote=Political theory has described a positive linkage between education, cognitive ability and democracy. This assumption is confirmed by positive correlations between education, cognitive ability, and positively valued political conditions (N = 183–130). [...] It is shown that in the second half of the 20th century, education and intelligence had a strong positive impact on democracy, rule of law and political liberty independent from wealth (GDP) and chosen country sample. One possible mediator of these relationships is the attainment of higher stages of moral judgment fostered by cognitive ability, which is necessary for the function of democratic rules in society. The other mediators for citizens as well as for leaders could be the increased competence and willingness to process and seek information necessary for political decisions due to greater cognitive ability. There are also weaker and less stable reverse effects of the rule of law and political freedom on cognitive ability.}}</ref>
* a cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better information-processing)
* an ethical effect (support of democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on intelligence.

Evidence consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Statistical analyses have challenged [[modernisation theory]] by demonstrating that there is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to emerge when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less unequal.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Albertus|first1=Michael|first2=Victor|last2=Menaldo|s2cid=153949862|title=Coercive Capacity and the Prospects for Democratisation|journal=Comparative Politics|volume=44|issue=2|year=2012|pages=151–69|doi=10.5129/001041512798838003}}</ref> In fact, empirical evidence shows that economic growth and education may not lead to increased demand for democratization as modernization theory suggests: historically, most countries attained high levels of access to primary education well before transitioning to democracy.<ref name="Paglayan 179–198">{{Cite journal|last=Paglayan|first=Agustina S.|date=February 2021|title=The Non-Democratic Roots of Mass Education: Evidence from 200 Years|journal=American Political Science Review|volume=115|issue=1|pages=179–198|doi=10.1017/S0003055420000647|issn=0003-0554|doi-access=free}}</ref> Rather than acting as a catalyst for democratization, in some situations education provision may instead be used by non-democratic regimes to indoctrinate their subjects and strengthen their power.<ref name="Paglayan 179–198"/>

The assumed link between education and economic growth is called into question when analyzing empirical evidence. Across different countries, the correlation between education attainment and math test scores is very weak (.07). A similarly weak relationship exists between per-pupil expenditures and math competency (.26). Additionally, historical evidence suggests that average human capital (measured using literacy rates) of the masses does not explain the onset of industrialization in France from 1750 to 1850 despite arguments to the contrary.<ref>Squicciarini, Mara and Voigtländer, Nico, Knowledge Elites and Modernization: Evidence from Revolutionary France (October 2016). NBER Working Paper No. w22779, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2861711</ref> Together, these findings show that education does not always promote human capital and economic growth as is generally argued to be the case. Instead, the evidence implies that education provision often falls short of its expressed goals, or, alternatively, that political actors use education to promote goals other than economic growth and development.

Some scholars have searched for the "deep" determinants of contemporary political institutions, be they geographical or demographic.<ref>{{cite book|title=Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy|last1=Acemoglu|first1=Daron|author-link1=Daron Acemoglu|first2=James A.|last2=Robinson|year=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-85526-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.plawlotic.com/?p=102|title=Rainfall and Democracy}}</ref>

An example of this is the disease environment. Places with different mortality rates had different populations and productivity levels around the world. For example, in Africa, the [[tsetse fly]]—which afflicts humans and livestock—reduced the ability of Africans to plough the land. This made Africa less settled. As a consequence, political power was less concentrated.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Alsan, Marcella|doi=10.1257/aer.20130604|url=https://www.dartmouth.edu/~neudc2012/docs/paper_285.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924201234/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~neudc2012/docs/paper_285.pdf|archive-date=2015-09-24|url-status=live|year=2015|title=The Effect of the TseTse Fly on African Development|journal=American Economic Review|volume=105|issue=1|pages=382–410|citeseerx=10.1.1.1010.2955}}</ref> This also affected the colonial institutions European countries established in Africa.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Acemoglu, Daron|author2=Johnson, Simon|author3=Robinson, James|year=2005|chapter=Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth|title=Handbook of Economic Growth|volume=1|pages=385–472, Sections 1 to 4|doi=10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3|isbn=978-0-444-52041-8}}</ref> Whether colonial settlers could live or not in a place made them develop different institutions which led to different economic and social paths. This also affected the distribution of power and the collective actions people could take. As a result, some African countries ended up having democracies and others [[autocracies]].

An example of geographical determinants for democracy is having access to coastal areas and rivers. This natural endowment has a positive relation with economic development thanks to the benefits of [[trade]].<ref>Mellinger, Andrew D., Jeffrey Sachs, and John L. Gallup. (1999). [http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/pubs/024.pdf "Climate, Water Navigability, and Economic Development"]. Working Paper.</ref> Trade brought economic development, which in turn, broadened power. Rulers wanting to increase revenues had to protect property-rights to create incentives for people to invest. As more people had more power, more concessions had to be made by the ruler and in many{{quantify|date=August 2018}} places this process lead to democracy. These determinants defined the structure of the society moving the balance of political power.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Acemoglu, Daron|author2=Johnson, Simon|author3=Robinson, James|year=2005|chapter=Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth|title=Handbook of Economic Growth|volume=1|pages=385–472, Sections 5 to 10|doi=10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3|isbn=978-0-444-52041-8}}</ref>

Robert Michels asserts that although democracy can never be fully realised, democracy may be developed automatically in the act of striving for democracy:

<blockquote>The peasant in the fable, when on his deathbed, tells his sons that a treasure is buried in the field. After the old man's death the sons dig everywhere in order to discover the treasure. They do not find it. But their indefatigable labor improves the soil and secures for them a comparative well-being. The treasure in the fable may well symbolise democracy.<ref>{{cite book|author=Robert Michels|title=Political Parties|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ijae_UIez38C|access-date=5 June 2013|date=1999|orig-year=1962 by [[Collier's|Crowell-Collier]]|publisher=[[Transaction Publishers]]|isbn=978-1-4128-3116-1|page=243}}</ref></blockquote>

Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the previously existing government, and many times it has faced opposition from social elites. The implementation of a democratic government from a non-democratic state is typically brought by peaceful or violent [[democratic revolution]].

===Autocratization===
{{Further|Democratic backsliding by country}}
{{Excerpt|Democratic backsliding|only=paragraph|hat=no}}

====Disruption====
Some democratic governments have experienced sudden [[state collapse]] and [[regime change]] to an undemocratic form of government. Domestic military coups or rebellions are the most common means by which democratic governments have been overthrown.<ref name="Siaroff">{{cite book|title=Comparing Political Regimes: A Thematic Introduction to Comparative Politics|author=Alan Siaroff|isbn=978-1-4426-0012-6|publisher=University of Toronto Press|year=2009|page=285}}</ref> (See [[List of coups and coup attempts by country]] and [[List of civil wars]].) Examples include the [[Spanish Civil War]], the [[Coup of 18 Brumaire]] that ended the [[French First Republic]], and the [[28 May 1926 coup d'état]] which ended the [[First Portuguese Republic]]. Some military coups are supported by foreign governments, such as the [[1954 Guatemalan coup d'état]] and the [[1953 Iranian coup d'état]]. Other types of a sudden end to democracy include:
* [[Invasion]], for example the [[German occupation of Czechoslovakia]], and the fall of [[South Vietnam]].
* [[Self-coup]], in which the leader of the government extra-legally seizes all power or unlawfully extends the term in office. This can be done through:
** Suspension of the constitution by decree, such as with the [[1992 Peruvian coup d'état]]
** An "electoral self-coup" using [[election fraud]] to obtain re-election of a previously fairly elected official or political party. For example, in the [[1999 Ukrainian presidential election]], [[2003 Russian legislative election]], and [[2004 Russian presidential election]].<ref name="Siaroff" />
* Royal coup, in which a monarch not normally involved in government seizes all power. For example, the [[6 January Dictatorship]], begun in 1929 when King [[Alexander I of Yugoslavia]] dismissed parliament and started ruling by decree.<ref>{{cite web|work=The New York Times|author=[[Edwin Leland James]]|title=King of Yugoslavia Assumes All Power|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1929/01/07/archives/king-of-yugoslavia-assumes-all-power-in-midnight-coup-alexander.html|date=7 January 1929|access-date=10 October 2023}}</ref>

[[Democratic backsliding]] can end democracy in a gradual manner, by increasing emphasis on [[national security]] and eroding [[free and fair election]]s, [[freedom of expression]], [[independence of the judiciary]], [[rule of law]]. A famous example is the [[Enabling Act of 1933]], which lawfully ended democracy in [[Weimar Germany]] and marked the transition to [[Nazi Germany]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Pinfield|first1=Nick|title=A/AS Level History for AQA Democracy and Nazism: Germany, 1918–1945 Student Book|date=2015|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=98}}</ref>

Temporary or long-term [[political violence]] and government interference can prevent [[free and fair election]]s, which erode the democratic nature of governments. This has happened on a local level even in well-established democracies like the United States; for example, the [[Wilmington insurrection of 1898]] and African-American [[disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era]].

===Debates on democracy===
{{Excerpt|Criticism of democracy}}

==Importance of mass media==
{{Further|topic=the role of the mass media in the democratic process|Mediatization (media)}}

The theory of democracy relies on the implicit assumption that voters are well informed about [[social issue]]s, policies, and candidates so that they can make a truly informed decision. Since the late 20'th century there has been a growing concern that voters may be poorly informed because the [[news media]] are focusing more on entertainment and gossip and less on serious journalistic research on political issues.<ref name="MacChesney1999">{{cite book|last1=MacChesney|first1=Robert W|title=Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times|date=1999|publisher=University of Illinois Press}}</ref><ref name="Barnett2002">{{cite journal|last1=Barnett|first1=Steven|title=Will a crisis in journalism provoke a crisis in democracy?|journal=The Political Quarterly|date=2002|volume=73|issue=4|pages=400–408|doi=10.1111/1467-923X.00494}}</ref>

The media professors Michael Gurevitch and [[Jay Blumler]] have proposed a number of functions that the mass media are expected to fulfill in a democracy:<ref name="GurevitchBlumler1990">{{cite book|last1=Gurevitch|first1=Michael|last2=Blumler|first2=Jay G.|editor1-last=Lichtenberg|editor1-first=Judith|title=Democracy and the mass media: A collection of essays|date=1990|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=269–289|chapter=Political Communication Systems and Democratic Values}}</ref>
* Surveillance of the sociopolitical environment
* Meaningful [[agenda setting]]
* Platforms for an intelligible and illuminating advocacy
* Dialogue across a diverse range of views
* Mechanisms for holding officials to account for how they have exercised power
* Incentives for citizens to learn, choose, and become involved
* A principled resistance to the efforts of forces outside the media to subvert their independence, integrity, and ability to serve the audience
* A sense of respect for the audience member, as potentially concerned and able to make sense of his or her political environment

This proposal has inspired a lot of discussions over whether the news media are actually fulfilling the requirements that a well functioning democracy requires.<ref name="Bucy1999">{{cite journal|last1=Bucy|first1=Erik P.|last2=D'Angelo|first2=Paul|title=The Crisis of Political Communication: Normative Critiques of News and Democratic Processes|journal=Communication Yearbook|date=1999|volume=22|pages=301–339}}</ref>
Commercial mass media are generally not accountable to anybody but their owners, and they have no obligation to serve a democratic function.<ref name="Bucy1999" /><ref name="Blumler2014">{{cite book|last1=Blumler|first1=Jay G.|editor1-last=Esser|editor1-first=Frank|editor2-last=Strömbäck|editor2-first=Jesper|title=Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies|date=2014|publisher=Springer|pages=31–41|chapter=Mediatization and Democracy}}</ref> They are controlled mainly by economic [[market forces]]. Fierce economic competition may force the mass media to divert themselves from any democratic ideals and focus entirely on how to survive the competition.<ref name="Donges2014">{{cite book|last1=Donges|first1=Patrick|last2=Jarren|first2=Otfried|editor1-last=Esser|editor1-first=Frank|editor2-last=Strömbäck|editor2-first=Jesper|title=Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies|date=2014|publisher=Springer|pages=31–41|chapter=Mediatization of Organizations: Changing Parties and Interest Groups?}}</ref><ref name="Esser2013">{{cite book|last1=Esser|first1=Frank|editor1-last=Kriesi|editor1-first=Hanspeter|editor2-last=Esser|editor2-first=Frank|editor3-last=Bühlmann|editor3-first=Marc|title=Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization|date=2013|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|pages=155–176|chapter=Mediatization as a Challenge: Media Logic versus Political Logic}}</ref>

The [[Tabloid journalism|tabloidization]] and popularization of the news media is seen in an increasing focus on human examples rather than statistics and principles. There is more focus on politicians as personalities and less focus on political issues in the popular media. Election campaigns are covered more as [[horse race journalism|horse races]] and less as debates about ideologies and issues. The dominating media focus on [[Spin (propaganda)|spin]], conflict, and competitive strategies has made voters perceive the politicians as egoists rather than idealists. This fosters mistrust and a [[Cynicism (contemporary)|cynical]] attitude to politics, less [[civic engagement]], and less interest in voting.<ref name="CappellaJamieson1997">{{cite book|last1=Cappella|first1=Joseph N.|last2=Jamieson|first2=Kathleen Hall|title=Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good|date=1997|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref><ref name="Vreese2014">{{cite book|last1=Vreese|first1=Claes H. de|editor1-last=Esser|editor1-first=Frank|editor2-last=Strömbäck|editor2-first=Jesper|title=Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies|date=2014|publisher=Springer|pages=137–155|chapter=Mediatization of News: The Role of Journalistic Framing}}</ref><ref name="EsserMatthes2013" />
The ability to find effective political solutions to social problems is hampered when problems tend to be blamed on individuals rather than on [[Social structure|structural causes]].<ref name="Vreese2014" />
This person-centered focus may have far-reaching consequences not only for domestic problems but also for foreign policy when international conflicts are blamed on foreign heads of state rather than on political and economic structures.<ref name="Baum2003">{{cite book|last1=Baum|first1=Matthew A.|title=Soft news goes to war. Public opinion and american foreign policy in the new media era|date=2003|publisher=Princeton University Press}}</ref><ref name="Altheide2002">{{cite book|last1=Altheide|first1=David L.|title=Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis|date=2002|publisher=Aldine de Gruyter|isbn=978-1-138-52143-8}}</ref>
A strong media focus on fear and [[terrorism]] has allowed military logic to penetrate public institutions, leading to increased [[surveillance]] and the erosion of [[civil rights]].<ref name="Altheide2014" />

The responsiveness<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016633226|doi=10.1177/0010414016633226|title=Advances in the Study of Democratic Responsiveness: An Introduction|year=2017|last1=Esaiasson|first1=Peter|last2=Wlezien|first2=Christopher|journal=Comparative Political Studies|volume=50|issue=6|pages=699–710|s2cid=155126179}}</ref> and [[accountability]] of the democratic system is compromised when lack of access to substantive, diverse, and undistorted information is handicapping the citizens' capability of evaluating the political process.<ref name="Blumler2014" /><ref name="EsserMatthes2013">{{cite book|last1=Esser|first1=Frank|last2=Matthes|first2=Jörg|editor1-last=Kriesi|editor1-first=Hanspeter|editor2-last=Esser|editor2-first=Frank|editor3-last=Bühlmann|editor3-first=Marc|title=Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization|date=2013|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|pages=177–201|chapter=Mediatization Effects on Political News, Political Actors, Political Decisions, and Political Audiences}}</ref>
The fast pace and trivialization in the competitive news media is [[dumbing down]] the political debate. Thorough and balanced investigation of complex political issues does not fit into this format. The political communication is characterized by short time horizons, short slogans, simple explanations, and simple solutions. This is conducive to political [[populism]] rather than serious deliberation.<ref name="Blumler2014" /><ref name="Altheide2014">{{cite book|last1=Altheide|first1=David L.|title=Media edge: Media logic and social reality|date=2014|publisher=Peter Lang}}</ref>

Commercial mass media are often differentiated along the political spectrum so that people can hear mainly opinions that they already agree with. Too much controversy and diverse opinions are not always profitable for the commercial news media.<ref name="Nielsen2016">{{cite book|last1=Nielsen|first1=Rasmus Kleis|editor1-last=Witschge|editor1-first=Tamara|editor2-last=Anderson|editor2-first=Christopher William|editor3-last=Domingo|editor3-first=David|editor4-last=Hermida|editor4-first=Alfred|title=The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism|date=2016|publisher=Sage|pages=51–67|chapter=The Business of News}}</ref>
[[Political polarization]] is emerging when different people read different news and watch different TV channels. This polarization has been worsened by the emergence of the [[social media]] that allow people to communicate mainly with groups of like-minded people, the so-called [[echo chamber]]s.<ref name="Cinelli2021">{{cite journal|last1=Cinelli|first1=Matteo|last2=Morales|first2=Gianmarco De Francisci|last3=Galeazzi|first3=Alessandro|last4=Quattrociocchi|first4=Walter|last5=Starnini|first5=Michele|title=The echo chamber effect on social media|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|date=2021|volume=18|issue=9|pages=e2023301118|doi=10.1073/pnas.2023301118|pmid=33622786|pmc=7936330|bibcode=2021PNAS..11823301C|doi-access=free}}</ref>
Extreme political polarization may undermine the trust in democratic institutions, leading to erosion of [[civil rights]] and [[free speech]] and in some cases even reversion to [[autocracy]].<ref name="McCoySomer2019">{{cite journal|last1=McCoy|first1=Jennifer|last2=Somer|first2=Murat|title=Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies|journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science|date=2019|volume=681|issue=1|pages=234–271|doi=10.1177/0002716218818782|s2cid=150169330|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Many media scholars have discussed non-commercial news media with [[Public service broadcasting|public service]] obligations as a means to improve the democratic process by providing the kind of political contents that a free market does not provide.<ref name="Cushion2012">{{cite book|last1=Cushion|first1=Stephen|title=The Democratic Value of News: Why Public Service Media Matter|date=2012|publisher=Macmillan}}</ref><ref name="CushionFranklin2015">{{cite book|last1=Cushion|first1=Stephen|last2=Franklin|first2=Bob|editor1-last=Coleman|editor1-first=Stephen|editor2-last=Moss|editor2-first=Giles|editor3-last=Parry|editor3-first=Katy|editor4-last=Halperin|editor4-first=John|editor5-last=Ryan|editor5-first=Michael|title=Can the Media Serve Democracy?: Essays in Honour of Jay G. Blumler|date=2015|publisher=Springer|pages=65–75|chapter=Public Service Broadcasting: Markets and Vulnerable Values in Broadcast and Print Journalism}}</ref>
The [[World Bank]] has recommended public service broadcasting in order to strengthen democracy in [[developing countries]]. These broadcasting services should be accountable to an independent regulatory body that is adequately protected from interference from political and economic interests.<ref name="Buckley2008">{{cite book|last1=Buckley|first1=Steve|last2=Duer|first2=Kreszentia|last3=Mendel|first3=Toby|last4=Siochrú|first4=Seán Ó|title=Broadcasting, voice, and accountability: A public interest approach to policy, law, and regulation|date=2008|publisher=World Bank and University of Michigan Press}}</ref>
Public service media have an obligation to provide reliable information to voters. Many countries have publicly funded radio and television stations with public service obligations, especially in Europe and Japan,<ref name="GuntherMugham">{{cite book|last1=Gunther|first1=Richard|last2=Mugham|first2=Anthony|editor1-last=Gunther|editor1-first=Richard|editor2-last=Mugham|editor2-first=Anthony|title=Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective|date=2000|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=402–448|chapter=The Political Impact of the Media: A Reassessment}}</ref> while such media are weak or non-existent in other countries including the US.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Pickard|first1=Victor|editor1-last=Bennett|editor1-first=W. Lance|editor2-last=Livingston|editor2-first=Steven|title=The Disinformation Age: Politics, Technology, and Disruptive Communication in the United States|date=2020|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=238–258|chapter=The Public Media Option: Confronting Policy Failure in an Age of Misinformation}}</ref>
Several studies have shown that the stronger the dominance of commercial broadcast media over public service media, the less the amount of policy-relevant information in the media and the more focus on [[horse race journalism]], personalities, and the pecadillos of politicians. Public service broadcasters are characterized by more policy-relevant information and more respect for [[Journalism ethics and standards|journalistic norms]] and [[impartiality]] than the commercial media. However, the trend of [[deregulation]] has put the public service model under increased pressure from competition with commercial media.<ref name="GuntherMugham" /><ref name="Udris2014">{{cite book|last1=Udris|first1=Linards|last2=Lucht|first2=Jens|editor1-last=Esser|editor1-first=Frank|editor2-last=Strömbäck|editor2-first=Jesper|title=Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies|chapter=Mediatization at the Structural Level: Independence from Politics, Dependence on the Market|date=2014|publisher=Springer|pages=114–136}}</ref><ref name="Thoday2018">{{cite book|last1=Thoday|first1=Jon|editor1-last=Freedman|editor1-first=Des|editor2-last=Goblot|editor2-first=Vana|title=A Future for Public Service Television|date=2018|publisher=MIT Press|pages=29–39|chapter=Public Service Television and the Crisis of Content}}</ref>

The emergence of the [[internet]] and the [[social media]] has profoundly altered the conditions for political communication. The social media have given ordinary citizens easy access to voice their opinion and share information while bypassing the [[Gatekeeping (communication)|filters]] of the large news media. This is often seen as an advantage for democracy.<ref name="Schulz2014">{{cite book|last1=Schulz|first1=Winfried|editor1-last=Esser|editor1-first=Frank|editor2-last=Strömbäck|editor2-first=Jesper|title=Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies|chapter=Mediatization and New Media|date=2014|publisher=Springer|pages=114–136}}</ref> The new possibilities for communication have fundamentally changed the way [[social movement]]s and [[protest movements]] operate and organize. The internet and social media have provided powerful new tools for democracy movements in developing countries and [[emerging democracies]], enabling them to bypass [[censorship]], voice their opinions, and organize protests.<ref name="Zhuravskaya2020">{{cite journal|last1=Zhuravskaya|first1=Ekaterina|last2=Petrova|first2=Maria|author2-link=Maria Petrova (economist)|last3=Enikolopov|first3=Ruben|title=Political effects of the internet and social media|journal=Annual Review of Economics|date=2020|volume=12|pages=415–438|doi=10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239|s2cid=219769484|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Voltmer2019">{{cite book|last1=Voltmer|first1=Katrin|last2=Sorensen|first2=Lone|editor1-last=Voltmer|editor1-first=Katrin|display-editors=etal|title=Media, Communication and the Struggle for Democratic Change|date=2019|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|pages=35–58|chapter=Media, Power, Citizenship: The Mediatization of Democratic Change}}</ref>

A serious problem with the social media is that they have no truth filters. The established news media have to guard their reputation as trustworthy, while ordinary citizens may post unreliable information.<ref name="Zhuravskaya2020" /> In fact, studies show that false stories are going more [[Viral phenomenon|viral]] than true stories.<ref name="Vosoughi2018">{{cite journal|last1=Vosoughi|first1=Soroush|last2=Roy|first2=Deb|last3=Aral|first3=Sinan|title=The spread of true and false news online|journal=Science|date=2018|volume=359|issue=6380|pages=1146–1151|doi=10.1126/science.aap9559|pmid=29590045|bibcode=2018Sci...359.1146V|s2cid=4549072|url=http://vermontcomplexsystems.org/share/papershredder/vosoughi2018a.pdf|access-date=12 October 2021|archive-date=29 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429073158/http://vermontcomplexsystems.org/share/papershredder/vosoughi2018a.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Prooijen2021">{{cite journal|last1=Prooijen|first1=Jan-Willem van|last2=Ligthart|first2=Joline|last3=Rosema|first3=Sabine|title=The entertainment value of conspiracy theories|journal=British Journal of Psychology|date=2021|volume=113|issue=1|pages=25–48|doi=10.1111/bjop.12522|pmid=34260744|pmc=9290699|doi-access=free}}</ref>
The proliferation of false stories and [[conspiracy theories]] may undermine public trust in the political system and public officials.<ref name="Prooijen2021" /><ref name="McCoySomer2019" />

Reliable information sources are essential for the democratic process. Less democratic governments rely heavily on [[censorship]], [[propaganda]], and [[misinformation]] in order to stay in power, while independent sources of information are able to undermine their legitimacy.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Egorov|first1=Georgy|last2=Sonin|first2=Konstantin|title=The political economics of non-democracy|date=2020|publisher=National Bureau of Economic Research|id=NBER Working Paper No. w27949|url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=3714441}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Column|num=2
|1=
* [[Democracy Ranking]]
* [[Defensive democracy]]
* [[Vaikunda Perumal Temple, Uthiramerur#Kudavolai system|Democracy in Chola Dynasty]]
* [[Democratic peace theory]]
* [[Empowered democracy]]
* [[Energy democracy]]
* [[Foucault–Habermas debate]]
* [[Good governance]]
* [[Horseshoe theory]]
|2={{Portal|Politics}}
* [[Industrial democracy]]
* [[Meritocracy]]
* [[Parliament in the Making]]
* [[Power to the people (slogan)|Power to the people]]
* [[Territorial peace theory]]
* [[Spatial citizenship]]
}}

==Footnotes==
{{reflist|group=nb}}
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist|30em|refs=
<ref name="Davies1992">{{cite book|author=Norman Davies|author-link=Norman Davies|title=The Third of May 1791.|url=https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/uploads/files/Working-Papers-Archives/CEE_24.pdf|date=15 May 1991|publisher=Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University.|access-date=5 September 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190905232450/https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/uploads/files/Working-Papers-Archives/CEE_24.pdf|archive-date=5 September 2019|url-status=dead}}</ref>

<ref name="Ligeza2017">{{cite book|author1=Jan Ligeza|title=Preambuła Prawa|language=pl|trans-title=The Preamble of Law|year=2017|publisher=Polish Scientific Publishers PWN|isbn=978-83-945455-0-5|page=12}}</ref>

<ref name="Kopstein2014">{{cite book|editor1-last=Kopstein|editor1-first=Jeffrey|editor2-last=Lichbach|editor2-first=Mark|editor3-last=Hanson|editor3-first=Stephen E.|title=Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order|date=2014|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-99138-4|pages=37–39|edition=4, revised|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L2jwAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38}}</ref>

<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691138305/bounding-power|title=Bounding Power|last=Deudney|first=Daniel|date=9 November 2008|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-13830-5}}</ref>

<ref name="refNARoP">{{cite web|title=Britain's unwritten constitution|url=http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution|publisher=British Library|access-date=27 November 2015|quote=The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown.... The Bill of Rights (1689) then settled the primacy of Parliament over the monarch's prerogatives, providing for the regular meeting of Parliament, free elections to the Commons, free speech in parliamentary debates, and some basic human rights, most famously freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment'.|archive-date=8 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208232341/http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution|url-status=dead}}</ref>

<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-11/mini-trumps-are-running-for-election-all-over-the-world|title=Mini-Trumps Are Running for Election All Over the World|last=Kurlantzick|first=Joshua|date=11 May 2017|publisher=Bloomberg News|access-date=16 May 2017}}</ref>

<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017|title=Freedom in the Word 2017|date=2016|website=freedomhouse.org|access-date=16 May 2017}}</ref>

<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8304.html|title=Deudney, D.: Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. (eBook and Paperback)|date=9 November 2008|isbn=978-0-691-13830-5|access-date=14 March 2017|last1=Deudney|first1=Daniel H.|publisher=Princeton University Press}}</ref>

<ref name="O'Neil, Patrick H 2010">O'Neil, Patrick H. Essentials of Comparative Politics. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton 2010. Print</ref>

<ref name="Golay">Vincent Golay and Mix et Remix, ''Swiss political institutions'', Éditions loisirs et pédagogie, 2008. {{ISBN|978-2-606-01295-3}}.</ref>

<ref name="Quigley1983-38">{{cite book|author=Carroll Quigley|title=Weapons systems and political stability: a history|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L6e2AAAAIAAJ|access-date=20 May 2013|year=1983|publisher=University Press of America|isbn=978-0-8191-2947-5|pages=38–39}}</ref>

<!--<ref name="wp091108">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601906.html|title=5 myths about the beauty of the ballot box|author=Paul Collier|author-link=Paul Collier|date=8 November 2009|work=The Washington Post|page=B2}}</ref>-->

}}

===Works cited===
{{refbegin}} 
* {{cite book|last1=Clarke|first1=P.|last2=Foweraker|first2=J.|title=Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought|publisher=Taylor & Francis|year=2001|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=srzDCqnZkfUC|isbn=978-0-415-19396-2}}
*{{Cite book|last=Graeber|first=David|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/769425385|title=The Democracy Project : a history, a crisis, a movement|date=2013|isbn=978-0-8129-9356-1|location=New York|oclc=769425385}}
* {{cite book|last1=Livy|last2=De Sélincourt|first2=A.|last3=Ogilvie|first3=R. M.|last4=Oakley|first4=S. P.|title=The early history of Rome: books I-V of The history of Rome from its foundations|publisher=Penguin Classics|year=2002|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHh7heON3sQC|isbn=978-0-14-044809-2|ref={{harvid|Livy|De Sélincourt|2002}}}}
* {{cite journal|author-last1=Mann|author-first1=Barbara A.|author-last2=Fields|author-first2=Jerry L.|title=A Sign in the Sky: Dating the League of the Haudenosaunee|journal=American Indian Culture and Research Journal|volume=21|number=2|date=1997|pages=105–163|doi=10.17953/aicr.21.2.k36m1485r3062510|doi-broken-date=15 September 2024|url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/27g1b5px}}
* {{cite book|last1=Ober|first1=J.|last2=Hedrick|first2=C.W.|title=Dēmokratia: a conversation on democracies, ancient and modern|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1996|isbn=978-0-691-01108-0}}
* {{cite book|last1=Raaflaub|first1=Kurt A.|last2=Ober|first2=Josiah|last3=Wallace|first3=Robert W|year=2007|title=Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=978-0-520-24562-4}}
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
* [[Paul Cartledge|Cartledge, Paul]] (2016). ''Democracy: A Life''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199697670.
* {{cite book|last1=Provost|first1=Claire|last2=Kennard|first2=Matt|author-link2=Matt Kennard (journalist)|date=2023|title=Silent Coup: How Corporations Overthrew Democracy|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic|isbn=978-1350269989}}
* [[Eugenio Biagini|Biagini, Eugenio]] (general editor). 2021. ''A Cultural History of Democracy'', 6 Volumes New York : Bloomsbury Academic.
* {{cite book|title=Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone|year=2019|first=Astra|author-link=Astra Taylor|last=Taylor|publisher=Metropolitan Books|isbn=978-1250179845}}
* [[Adam Przeworski|Przeworski, Adam]] (2018) ''Why Bother With Elections?'' Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
* [[Gerardo L. Munck|Munck, Gerardo L.]] (2016) "What is Democracy? A Reconceptualization of the Quality of Democracy". ''Democratization'' 23(1): 1–26.
* {{cite book|last=Fuller|first=Roslyn|date=2015|title=Beasts and Gods: How Democracy Changed Its Meaning and Lost its Purpose|location=London|publisher=Zed Books|page=371|isbn=978-1-78360-542-2|author-link=Roslyn Fuller}}

==External links==
{{Library resources box
|by=no
|onlinebooks=no
|others=no
|about=yes
|label=Democracy}}
{{Commons category|Democracy}}
{{Wikiquote}}
{{Wiktionary|democracy}}
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy Democracy] at the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]''
* [https://democracyparadox.com/the-democracy-paradox-podcast/ Podcast: Democracy Paradox], hundreds of interviews with democracy experts around the world

{{navboxes
|list=
{{Government}}
{{Age of Enlightenment}}
{{Political philosophy}}
{{Western culture}}
}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Classical Greece]]
[[Category:Democracy| ]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Types of democracy]]