The Evolution of Democracy “I think democracy is the best form of government,” says Alan. In reply Beth says, “You must be crazy to believe that the so-called democratic government in this country is the best we can have! Why I don’t even think it’s much of a democracy!” While Alan is speaking about the ideal of a democracy, Beth speaks of democracy as a form of government (pg 26). The ideals of democracy and the actuality of democracy as a form of government are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The ideal of democracy is devoted to the thought that people have enough intelligence and moral standards to create a set of rules and follow them while voting accordingly and controlling and/or governing themselves instead of living under a dictatorship. While democracy as a government does not always follow this same path, it does share some of the same characteristics and ideals, but in a normal situation in present day society there are too many different factors and complications that disallow a democratic government from working in the perfect manner that ideal democracy would function under. “Democracy was more of a subject for philosophers to theorize about than an actual political system for people to adopt and practice” (pg 3). Democracy, like everything in life, has endured change and evolved over the past centuries. Although the exact origin and creation of Democracy cannot be traced back to one exact person, century, or country, there are multiple groups that have their own ideals or version of a democracy. Democracy has always seemed like the best ideal or governmental choice for most people, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t had its own battles with other anti-democratic groups such as communists, fascists, and Nazis (pg 1). In all actuality, Democracy has been discussed for over twenty-five hundred years and has only made its plunge onto U.S. soil within the past two-hundred years. Although it is hard to pinpoint the exact origin of democracy, it is believed to have come from Ancient Rome or Greece (pg 7). Historians believe that democracy might have been invented or “thought up” in Ancient Greece and then branched out from there, spreading from every continent until it finally reached its current position in everyday society. Although, this accusation has generally been claimed false about Democracy’s place of origin for at least two reasons. First, because anyone with a general education of World History should know that after its early centuries in Greece and Rome that popular government greatly declined after it had its brief rise which ended up leading to its disappearance (pg 7). Instead of following an instant airplane path of “Up! Up! And away!” democracy’s path would instead look more like that of a cross country runner crossing a flat and almost endless plain with a few hills before finally reaching a long climb up a mountain to its present heights. The second mistake is that people assume that democracy was created just once and for all and did not originate in more than one place and at more than one point in time (pg 9). Democracy could have been invented anywhere as long as favorable conditions existed. Some of the expansion of democracy could be said to come from the diffusion of political parties and ideas. Although, this cannot account for all of the explanations about where and how democracy has developed. “Like fire, painting, or writing, democracy seems to have been invented more than once and in more than one place” (pg 9). In his writing’s Dahl states, “I assume that democracy can be independently invented and reinvented whenever the appropriate conditions exist and the appropriate conditions have existed, I believe, at different times and in different places. Just as a supply of tillable land and adequate rain fall have generally encouraged the development of agriculture, so certain favorable conditions have always supported a tendency toward the development of a democratic government because of favorable conditions some form of democracy probably existed for tribal governments long before recorded history” (pg 9-10). Dahl would also like us to believe that through what he calls “logic of equality,” that members of a tribe, culture, or society can easily govern themselves without the interference of outsiders or a dictator as long as everyone in the society can see each person as an equal and equivalent to himself (pg 10). In this situation it is easy for the members of this group to make a mass decision versus being given the decision by a single leader, dictator, or king because they share equality. Therefore, this would mean that no man is better than any other. So, they must all in all do what is best for everyone in order to do what is best for themselves. Eventually, this form of “natural government” came to an end and was replaced by different types of government such as: monarchies, despotisms, aristocracies, or oligarchies. All of these systems were based off of some type of ranking and/or hierarchy (pg 11). It was not until classical Greece and Rome that systems of government were able to provide popular participation by a mass amount of citizens. This occurred around 500 B.C.E. and on such a concrete foundation that it barely endured much change and stuck for centuries. Classical Greece was not a country like we would think in our modern sense. At that point in time it functioned more like a continent in itself. Each of its cities were more like “city-states” than just small cities. Each city-state was usually surrounded by its own country side or land-barrier and was self-governed. The most popular of these city states was probably Athens and continued to be until it was subjugated by Macedonia after 321 B.C.E. (Pg 11). Around 507 B.C.E. the Athenians gained a popular system of government and they were assumed to have coined the term democracy or “demokratia” from the Greek word “demos” or “people” and “kratos” or “to rule” (pg 11). These Athenians seemed to have all, or at least most, of the details worked out to participate in a popular system of government using an assembly where all inhabitants of the area were able to participate and this system would elect a few key officials to oversee its actions (pg 12). At about the same time, Rome was given its own glimpse of popular government. Except, the romans decided to call their system a republic instead of a democracy or demokratia. The “republic” would originate from the words “res” meaning “thing” or “affair” in Latin and “publicus” or “public” (pg 13). The loose meaning of their creation being that the “republic” belonged to the people (pg 13). This meaning was not always completely true though. Originally the right to participate in the republic was only given to the patricians and the aristocrats (pg 13). Eventually, after many struggles, the common people (also known as plebeians) were allowed entry into the republic. Although, their entry was limited to only the men of society just as most systems of government would continue to restrict women until the twentieth century (pg 13). Eventually the Roman Republic would expand by a process of annexation and would eventually overtake most of Italy and far beyond easily escaping from its previous city’s boundaries. Although the republic did conquer many places and peoples, they often gave Roman citizenship which was greatly valued and gave these conquered people roman rights and privileges (pg 13). After giving away citizenship, the numbers of the republic greatly increased, but the assemblies for the republic that were to take place never moved or expanded. The meetings continued to stay confined to the city of Rome. This created an issue for most citizens because the forums were too far away to attend and too expensive to travel to as well (pg 13-14). An example of this issue set in modern society would be if “American citizenship had been conferred on the people in the various states as the country expanded, even though the people in the new states could only exercise their right to vote in national elections by showing up in Washington, D.C.” (Pg 14). Luckily for us, this situation does not exist in American society today. Although the Roman Republic did manage to elect officials in assemblies, they never really created a system of representative government that was based on democratically elected representatives (pg 14). Eventually a type of popular reappeared in Italy around 1100 C.E. It stated out relatively small with city-states where the popular governments would develop like in Rome. Italy endured much of the same traits that Rome had earlier. The participation in assemblies was at first once again limited to the nobles and large land owners. In time, urban residents in the lower class were able to participate as well. Slowly, more and more of the lower class was able to participate in the assemblies and take an active role in the governing process. These republics flourished in a number of Italian cities for over two centuries. Eventually, these republics became deceased in the 1300s due to economic decline, corruption, oligarchy, war, conquest, and seizure of power by authoritarian rulers (pg 16). Although the Greeks, Romans, and Italians all had their own form of popular government, they were not the only ones. The Vikings were the start of local assemblies. In Norway, the Vikings would meet regularly at a boat-shaped ring of large stones where they would hold an assembly. They called this assembly a “ting,” which is the Norse word equivalent for the Old English word meaning “thing” (18). By 900 C.E., assemblies of free Vikings were meeting in many areas of Scandinavia as well. At the “Tings,” the freemen settled disputes, arguments, deals, rejected laws, created laws, and many other activities. The “Tings,” consisted of large vertically standing rocks placed in a large circle formation in a specified area. It was here that they held all of these activities and the “Tings” have easily been mistaken for “proof of aliens” in the past when that is truly not the case. Eventually they would accept Christianity and even allow a king. Still the idea of idea of equality was still alive and well among the Viking freemen during the tenth century. Once, some Danish Vikings were traveling up a river in France. While traveling up the river they were asked by a messenger calling out from the riverbank, “ What is the name of your master?” “None,” they replied, “ We are all but equals here” (pg 19). Although, this instance would only be boasted by those Vikings that were considered freemen and despite limitations on equality the class of freemen was large enough to impose a lasting democratic influence on political institutions and traditions (pg 19). Democracy has always had the same principle ideas or “requirements” whether they were actually acknowledged or not. The first requirement being that there must be effective participation. Before a policy is adopted by the association, all the members must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views known to the other members as to what the policy should be. Secondly, there must be a present sense of voting equality. When the moment arrives at which the decision about policy will finally be made, every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal (pg 37). “On the most important matters that this association will deal with, no one among us is so much wiser than the rest that his or her views should automatically prevail. Even if some members may know more about an issue at any given moment, we’re all capable learning what we need to know. Of course, we will need to discuss matters and deliberate among ourselves before reaching our decisions. To deliberate and discuss and then decide on policies is a reason why we’re forming this association. But we’re all equally qualified to participate in discussing the issues and then deciding the policies our association should follow. Consequently our constitution should be based on that assumption. It should guarantee all of us the right to participate in the decisions of the association. To put it plainly, because we are all equally qualified we should govern ourselves democratically” (pg 36). Third, there must be a presence of enlightened understanding. Within reasonable limits as to time, each member must have equal and effective opportunities for learning about the relevant alternative policies and their likely consequences (pg 37). Fourth, there must be some sort of control over the agenda. The members must have the exclusive opportunity to decide how and, if they choose, what matters are to be placed on the agenda. Thus the democratic process required the by the three preceding criteria is never closed. The policies of the association are always open to change by the members, if they so choose (pg 38). Fifth is the inclusion of adults. All, or at least any rate most, adult permanent residents should have the full rights of citizens that are implied by the first four criteria. Before the twentieth century this criteria was unacceptable to most advocates of democracy (pg 38). It is not difficult to understand how democracy has many origins or requirements in order to function, but it does lead to a different question; Why choose democracy? Democracy creates multiple desirable consequences for all participating parties. These desired effects could be any of the following: avoiding tyranny, protecting essential rights, containing general freedom, maintaining self determination, regenerating moral autonomy, creating human development, protecting essential personal interests, promoting political equality, producing peace seeking, and rejuvenating prosperity (pg 45). First, democracy prevents tyranny and dictatorships. If democracy did not keep tyrants and dictators at bay, then the world as we know it would be a different place. Countries would be over ridden by previous leaders such as Stalin, Hitler, and Hussein (pg 48). Second, democracy guarantees its citizens a number of fundamental rights that nondemocratic do not and cannot grant (pg 48). Rights are among the essential building blocks of a democratic system of government. Democracy allows all persons and participating parties to exercise their personal and unalienable rights, such as voting and/or freedom of speech, etc. (pg 50). Third, democracy ensures its citizens a broader range of personal freedoms than any feasible alternative to it (pg 50). Democracy could not long to exist unless its citizens manage to create and maintain a supportive political culture , which indeed, would be a general culture that is supportive of its ideals and practices (pg 51). This ensures that it is safe to say that a democratic culture is almost certain to emphasize the value of personal freedom and also ensures to provide support for additional rights and liberties. The Greek statesman Pericles once said, “The freedom we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life” (pg 51). Fourth, democracy helps to protect people’s own fundamental interests (pg 52). Nearly everyone, wants certain things from life such as survival, food, shelter, health, love, respect, security, family, friends, satisfying work, and leisure (pg 52). Although, it is very true that most people’s wants will differ from one another’s, no one states this freedom better than John Stuart Mill (pg 52). He once said, “of a universal truth and applicability as any general propositions which can be laid down respecting human affairs is that the rights and interests of any or every person are secure from being disregarded when the person himself is able, and habitually disposed to stand up for them.. Human beings are only secure from evil at the hands of others in proportion as they have the power of being, and are, self-protecting” (pg 52). Fifth, Only a democratic government can provide the maximum opportunity for persons to exercise the freedom of self-determination that is, to live under the laws of their own choosing (pg 53). No human being can live a satisfying life without coexisting and interacting with other human beings. Not everyone can live in perfect harmony, but by following rules that are set and agreed on, anarchy can be prevented. This process would insure that before a law is enacted that all citizens would have an opportunity to make their views present and known. Citizens will be guaranteed an opportunity and right to join in on open discussions, deliberations, negotiations, and compromises which may lead to changes in laws (pg 54). Sixth, only a democratic government can provide a maximum opportunity for exercising moral responsibility (pg 55). This allows people to reflect, perceive, deliberate, and decide on responsibilities and actions. Seventh, democracy fosters human development more fully than any feasible alternative (pg 55). This claim is a little far fetched and cannot be completely measured. Although, it could be considered feasible depending on one’s thoughts or moral standards. Eighth, Only a democratic government can foster a relatively high degree of political equality (pg 56). One of the most important reasons for referring to a democratic government is because it ensures all citizens a degree of political equality and allows all voices to be heard. This system provides not only suffrage, but equal rights to all adult citizens (pg 57). Giving the freedom to vote to those who once did not have the right to. For centuries, the right to vote was limited to nobles, nights, or was not given at all if the situation were run by a dictator. Finally during the 20th century all minorities and sexes are able to vote. Woman, blacks, and people of all genders are now allowed the right to vote. So, they should be allowed to exercise that right because it has been given to them. Ninth, modern representative democracies do not fight wars with one another (pg 57). These representative democracies are never guaranteed to always agree or believe the same things, but they do have the ability to deliberate, discuss, and eventually, in most cases, compromise and find the best possible solution to any problem. Therefore, they also find people and other democratic countries less threatening. The practice and history of peaceful negotiations, treaties, alliances, and common defense ensures that these democracies are trying to ensure peace. Thus a more democratic world promises to also be a more peaceful world (pg 58). Tenth, countries with democratic governments tend to be more prosperous than countries than countries with non-democratic governments (pg 58). Democracies generally have more advantages over countries with non-democratic governments. Democratic governments favor the education of their citizens and by educating its citizens that creates an educated work force. An educated work force is great for economic growth and development. In addition, the rules and laws are usually more strictly and strongly sustained by democratic governments (pg 59). In countries with democratic countries courts are more independent, property rights are more secure, contracts and agreements are more easily followed and kept in tact. Finally, modern economies depend on communication and the barriers to communication are much lower in democratic societies (pg 59). Democracy can provide the world and its citizens with many wonderful rights and opportunities and it also has its own set of requirements, but It also requires its own political institutions (pg. 85). First, democracy requires elected officials which are elected by citizens and control over government policies and are constitutionally invested. Second, there must be free, fair, and frequent elections. Elected officials are chosen in frequent and fairly conducted elections in which coercion is comparatively uncommon. Third, there must be freedom of expression and citizens will have the right to express themselves without danger of sever punishment or criticism from officials (pg 86). Fourth, citizens must have access to alternative forms of information. Citizens have the right to access information from newspapers, other citizens, magazines, books, telecommunications, etc. Fifth, citizens have a right to associated autonomy and are able to form their own political groups and organizations if favored. Sixth, citizens are entitled to inclusive citizenship,. This meaning that, “no adult living in the country, who is subject to its laws, should be denied the rights that are available to others and are necessary to the five political institutions that were just previously listed. Although democracy does have many pluses, it also has a few weaknesses as well. Democracy is not a perfect form of government. There is no “perfect” government and this cannot exist because of fluctuation opinions and the standards of everyday life. Negative points to democracy can be any of the following (pg 108). Democracy’s opportunities for participation diminish with the size of the citizen body. Many citizens participate by listening to speakers, but the maximum number in a single meeting are not as likely to express themselves in speech. Even in a system of government run by assembly democracy, a “de facto” representative system is very likely to form or exist. Nothing ensures that the participating members are representatives for those who are not. Most citizens may decide to elect their officials through free and frequent elections in order to provide a more satisfactory way of electing them (pg 108). In 1861 John Stuart Mill wrote, “It is evident that the only government which can fully satisfy all the exigencies of the social state is one in which the whole people participate; that any participation, even in the smallest public function, is useful’ that the participation should everywhere be as great as the general degree of improvement of the community will allow; and that nothing less can be ultimately desirable than the admission of all to a share in the sovereign power of the state. But since all cannot, in a community exceeding a single small town, participate personally in any but some very minor portions of the public business, it follows that the ideal type of a perfect government must be representative” (pg 95). Although democracy comes in more than one form and has multiple meanings, it has endured change over the centuries. Democracy can be not only an ideal, but also a form of government. It is not easy to distinguish the actual origin and birth place of democracy and it has many uses. Without democracy, the world would be left to function under tyranny, anarchy, and communist dictatorships. Democracy requires many things in order to run smoothly such as equal opportunity, voting equality, effective opportunities for learning about the relevant alternative policies and their likely consequences, control over the agenda, and inclusion of adults. Without these particular requirements, there is no way democracy would be able to continue to flourish throughout the current century. There are also many reasons why we should choose to promote and practice a democratic form of government. These reasons are as follows: avoiding tyranny, protecting essential rights, containing general freedom, maintaining self determination, regenerating moral autonomy, creating human development, protecting essential personal interests, promoting political equality, producing peace seeking, and rejuvenating prosperity (pg 45). Representative democratic governments also have their own required political institutions such as elected officials, free fair and frequent elections, freedom of expression, alternative sources of information, associated autonomy, and inclusive citizenship (pg 85). Then, democracy like everything in life has its own pluses and minuses to operating or governing. Without these reasons, there would be no point in practicing a democratic government or even believe in it. Whether as an ideal or a system of government, democracy will continue to flourish and withstand the sands of time. As Alexis De Tocqueville once said, “society governs itself for itself,” which it will continue to do for many years to come (pg 88).
