Liberal Democracy & its Institutions
Liberal democracy, also referred to as Western democracy, is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under an indirect democratic form of government. It is characterised by
- Elections - between multiple distinct political parties
- Separation of Powers - in different branches of government
- Rule of Law - in everyday life as part of an open society
- Market Economy - with private property
- Equal Protection - of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people
liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States) or uncodified (such as in the United Kingdom), to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract.
After a period of expansion in the second half of the 20th century, liberal democracy became a prevalent political system in the world.
A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms as it may be
- a constitutional monarchy
- a republic
- a parliamentary system
- a presidential system
- a semi-presidential system.
Liberal democracies usually have universal suffrage, granting all adult citizens the right to vote regardless of ethnicity, sex, property ownership, race, age, sexuality, gender, income, social status, or religion. However, historically some countries regarded as liberal democracies have had a more limited franchise.
Even today, some countries considered to be liberal democracies do not have truly universal suffrage as those in the United Kingdom serving long prison sentences are unable to vote, a policy which has been ruled a human rights violation by the European Court of Human Rights. A similar policy is also enacted in most of the United States. According to a study by Coppedge and Reinicke, at least 85% of countries provided for universal suffrage. Many nations require positive identification before being allowed to vote. For example, in the United States 2/3 of states require their citizens to provide identification to vote. The decisions made through elections are made not by all of the citizens but rather by those who are members of the electorate and who choose to participate by voting.
The liberal democratic constitution defines the democratic character of the state. The purpose of a constitution is often seen as a limit on the authority of the government.
Liberal democracy emphasises the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a system of checks and balances between branches of government.
Multi-party systems with at least two persistent, viable political parties are characteristic of liberal democracies.
In Europe, liberal democracies are likely to emphasise the importance of the state being a Rechtsstaat, i.e. a state that follows the principle of rule of law.
Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure.
Many democracies use federalism, also known as vertical separation of powers, in order to prevent abuse and increase public input by dividing governing powers between municipal, provincial and national governments (e.g. Germany, where the federal government assumes the main legislative responsibilities and the federated Länder assume many executive tasks).
Democracy refers to a form of government in which
the people either
have the authority to choose
their governing legislators, or the
authority
to decide on legislation.
Ten Cornerstones of Democracy
(3) Inclusiveness and (4) Equality (5) Membership
(6) Consent (7) Voting (8) Right to Life and
(9) Minority Rights (10) Rule of Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exclusion#Social_inclusion
What Are These Root Principles?
We have identified 11 that we believe are key to understanding how
democracy has evolved and how it operates in the United States.
Constitutionalism: Law-making must take place within certain parameters; there must be approved methods for laws to be made and to be changed, and certain areas -- namely the rights of individuals -- must be off limits to the whims of majority rule. A key feature of constitutionalism is that this basic framework cannot easily be changed because of the wishes of a transient majority. It requires the consent of the governed expressed in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Democratic Elections: No matter how well designed a government is, it cannot be considered democratic unless the officials who head that government are freely elected by the citizens in a manner perceived to be open and fair to all. The essentials are the same for all democratic societies: access of all qualified citizens to the ballot, protection of the individual against undue influence in the casting of the ballot, and an open and honest counting of the votes.
Federalism, State and Local Governments: The United States is unique in its federal system of government, in which power and authority are shared and exercised by national, state, and local governments. But if the model is not suited to other nations, there are still lessons to be learned. The further government is from the people, the less effective it is and the less it is trusted. By having local and state governments, Americans can see some of their elected officials up close. They can tie policies and programs directly to the men and women who enacted them and who implement them. In addition, decentralization of authority makes it all that much harder to effect an illegitimate takeover of the government. The principle that democracies ought to decentralize power and responsibility may not matter much in a small and relatively homogeneous country, but it can be an important safeguard in large and heterogeneous nations.
Creation of Law: History records that formal laws have been made by mankind for five millennia, but the methods different societies have used to make the rules under which they will live have varied enormously, from edicts by god-kings to majority vote at village meetings. In the United States, law is made at many levels, from local town councils, on up through state legislatures, to the U.S. Congress. But at all these levels, there is a large input from the citizenry, either directly or indirectly. Law-making bodies recognize that they are responsible to their constituents, and if they do not legislate in the people's best interests, they will face defeat at the next election. The key to democratic law-making is not the mechanism or even the forum in which it takes place, but the sense of accountability to the citizenry and the need to recognize the wishes of the people.
An Independent Judiciary: Alexander Hamilton remarked in The Federalist in 1788-89 that the courts, being without the powers of either sword or purse, would be "the least dangerous branch" of the government. Yet courts can be very powerful in a democracy, and in many ways are the operating arm through which constitutional constraints are interpreted and enforced. In the United States, the courts may declare acts of Congress and of state legislatures invalid because they conflict with the Constitution, and may enjoin presidential actions on similar grounds. The greatest defender of individual rights in the United States has been the court system; this is made possible because most judges have life tenure and can focus on legal issues without the distraction of politics. While not all constitutional courts are the same, there must be a body that has the authority to determine what the Constitution says, and when different branches of government have exceeded their powers.
Powers of the Presidency: All modern societies must have a chief executive able to carry out the responsibilities of government, from the simple administration of a program to directing the armed forces to defending the nation in wartime. But a fine line must be drawn between giving the executive sufficient powers to do the job and, at the same time, limiting that authority to prevent a dictatorship. In the United States, the Constitution has drawn clear lines around the powers of the president, and while the office is one of the strongest in the world, its strength derives from consent of the governed and the ability of the occupant of the White House to work well with the other branches of government. Here again, the actual organization of the chief executive's office is not the issue, but rather the constraints imposed upon that office by such principles as "separation of powers." In a democracy, a president must rule through his or her political skills, establishing a framework of cooperation with the legislature and above all with the people. At the same time, the citizenry must feel secure that constitutional constraints ensure that the president or prime minister is always the servant, and not the master, of the people.
Role of a Free Media: Closely tied to the public's right to know are a free media -- newspapers, radio and television networks -- that can investigate the workings of government and report on them without fear of prosecution. English common law made any criticism of the king (and by extension the entire government) a crime known as seditious libel. The United States eventually did away with this crime, and in its place created a theory of the press that has served democracy well. In a complex state, the individual citizen may not be able to leave work to go watch trials, sit in on legislative debates, or investigate how a government program works. But the press is the surrogate of the citizen, reporting back through print and broadcast media what it has found so that the citizenry can act on that knowledge. In a democracy, the people rely on the press to ferret out corruption, to expose the maladministration of justice or the inefficient and ineffective workings of a government body. No country can be free without a free press, and one sign of any dictatorship is the silencing of the media.
Role of Interest Groups: In the 18th century, and in fact well into the 19th, law-making represented primarily a dialogue between the voters and their elected representatives in Congress or in state and local governments. Because the population was smaller, governmental programs more limited, and communications simpler, there was no need for citizens to resort to mediating organizations for assistance in making their views known. But, in the 20th century, society grew more complex, and the role of government expanded. Now there are many issues that voters need to speak about, and in order to make their voices heard on specific matters, citizens create lobby groups, groups advocating public and private interests, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) devoted to single issues. There has been much internal criticism of this aspect of American democracy, and some people claim that those interests with access to large sums of money can make their voices better heard than those with fewer resources. There is a certain truth to that criticism, but the fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of these groups who help to educate the public and lawmakers about particular matters, and in doing so they help many individual citizens of ordinary means get their views known to their lawmakers in a complex age. With the age of the Internet upon us, the number of voices will increase even more, and these NGOs will help to refine and focus citizen interest in an effective manner.
Public's Right to Know: Before this century, if people wanted to know how their government was running, generally all they had to do was go down to the town hall or the agora and listen to the debates and discussions. But today we deal with large, complex bureaucracies, statutes and regulations that often run hundreds of pages, and a legislative process that, even while accountable to the people, may still be too murky for most to understand what is happening. In a democracy, government should, as much as possible, be transparent -- that is, its deliberations and decisions should be open to public scrutiny. Clearly, not all government actions should be public, but the citizenry have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent, whether the administration of justice is efficient and effective, and whether their elected representatives are acting responsibly. How this information is made available will vary from government to government, but no democratic government can operate in total secrecy.
Protecting Minority Rights: If by "democracy" we mean rule by the majority, then one of the great problems in a democracy is how minorities are treated. By "minorities" we do not mean people who voted against the winning party, but rather those who are indelibly different from the majority by reasons of race, religion, or ethnicity. In the United States, the great problem has been that of race; it took a bloody civil war to free black slaves, and then another century before people of color could count on free exercise of their constitutional rights. The problem of racial equality is one that the United States is still wrestling with today. But this is part of the evolutionary nature of democracy, the drive to become more inclusive and to grant to those who are different from the majority not only protection against persecution but the opportunity to participate as full and equal citizens. Examples of nations treating their minorities in a bloody and horrible manner are numerous, and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews is only the most vivid illustration. But no society can aspire to call itself democratic if it systematically excludes specific groups from the full protection of the laws.
Civilian Control of the Military: In ancient times, the primary responsibility of a leader was to lead society's military forces either to defend the nation or to conquer others. All too often, the popularity of a successful general led him to seek control of the government through force; he who controlled the military could easily sweep all others aside. In modern times we have seen, far too many times to count, a colonel or general using the power of the army in a coup to overthrow the civilian government. In a democracy, the military must not only be under the actual control of civilian authorities, but it must have a culture that emphasizes the role of soldiers as the servants and not the rulers of society. This is easier to accomplish when there is a citizen army, whose officers come from all sectors of society and after a term of service, return to civilian life. But the principle remains the same: The military must always be subordinate; its job is to protect democracy and not rule.
From these essays we can derive certain overarching themes.
1. In a democracy the ultimate source of all authority is the people.
2. There must be a division of powers so that no one part of the government can become so strong as to subvert the will of the people.
3. The rights of individuals and of minorities must be respected, and the majority may not use its power to deprive any person of basic liberties.
Introduction: The Root Principles of Democracy
https://web-archive-2017.ait.org.tw/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper1.htmlWhat is Democracy?
-Kofi Annan
The word democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", meaning people, and "kratos" meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as "power of the people": a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.
There are so many different models of democratic government around the world that it is sometimes easier to understand the idea of democracy in terms of what it definitely is not. Democracy, then, is not autocracy or dictatorship, where one person rules; and it is not oligarchy, where a small segment of society rules. Properly understood, democracy should not even be "rule of the majority", if that means that minorities' interests are ignored completely. A democracy, at least in theory, is government on behalf of all the people, according to their "will".
Question: If democracy is government by the people, are there any real democracies in the world?
Why democracy?
The idea of democracy derives its moral strength – and popular appeal – from two key principles:
1. Individual autonomy: The idea that no-one should be subject to rules which have been imposed
by others. People should be able to control their own lives (within
reason).
2. Equality: The idea that everyone should have the same opportunity to influence
the decisions that affect people in society.
These principles are intuitively appealing, and they help to explain why democracy is so popular. Of course we feel it is fair that we should have as much chance as anyone else to decide on common rules!
The problems arise when we consider how the principles can be put into practice, because we need a mechanism for deciding how to address conflicting views. Because it offers a simple mechanism, democracy tends to be "rule of the majority"; but rule of the majority can mean that some people's interests are never represented. A more genuine way of representing everyone's interests is to use decision making by consensus, where the aim is to find common points of interest.
Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of making decisions by consensus, compared to using majority rule? How are decisions made in your youth group?
The development of democracy
Ancient history
The ancient Greeks are credited with creating the very first democracy,
although there were almost certainly earlier examples of primitive
democracy in other parts of the world. The Greek model was established in
the 5th century BC, in the city of Athens. Among a sea of autocracies and
oligarchies – which were the normal forms of government at the time –
Athenian democracy stood out.
However, compared to how we understand democracy today, the Athenian model had two important differences:
1. Theirs was a form of direct democracy – in other words, instead of electing representatives to govern on the people's behalf, "the people" themselves met, discussed questions of government, and then implemented policy.
Democracy is not the law of the majority, but the protection of the
minority.
Albert Camus
2. Such a system was possible partly because "the people" was a very limited category. Those who could participate directly were a small part of the population, since women, slaves, aliens – and of course, children – were excluded. The numbers who participated were still far more than in a modern democracy: perhaps 50,000 males engaged directly in politics, out of a population of around 300,000 people.
Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy?
Democracy in the modern world
While democracies share common features, there is no single model of
democracy.
UN Resolution on promoting and consolidating democracy
(A/RES/62/7)
Today there are as many different forms of democracy as there are democratic nations in the world. No two systems are exactly the same and no one system can be taken as a "model". There are presidential and parliamentary democracies, democracies that are federal or unitary, democracies that use a proportional voting system, and ones that use a majoritarian system, democracies which are also monarchies, and so on.
One thing that unites modern systems of democracy, and which also distinguishes them from the ancient model, is the use of representatives of the people. Instead of taking part directly in law making, modern democracies use elections to select representatives who are sent by the people to govern on their behalf. Such a system is known as representative democracy. It can lay some claim to being "democratic" because it is, at least to some degree, based on the two principles above: equality of all (one person – one vote), and the right of every individual to some degree of personal autonomy.
Question: What should an elected official do to make sure he or she is representing properly those who elected him or her?
"The right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the
presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion ... Any
departure from the principle of universal suffrage risks undermining the
democratic validity of the legislature thus elected and the laws which
it promulgates."
Judgement of the European Court (Hirst v. UK)
Improving democracy
People often talk about countries "becoming" democracies, once they start to have relatively free and open elections. But democracy includes far more than just elections, and it really makes more sense to think about the will of the people idea, rather than about institutional or voting structures, when we are trying to assess how democratic a country is. Democracy is better understood as something that we can always have more – or less – of, rather than something that either is, or is not.
Democratic systems can nearly always be made more inclusive, more reflective of more people's wishes, and more responsive to their influence. In other words, there is room to improve the "people" part of democracy, by including more people in decision making; there is also room to improve the "power" or "will" part of democracy, by giving the people more real power. Struggles for democracy throughout history have normally concentrated on one or the other of these elements.
Today, in most countries of the world, women do have the vote but the
struggle has been won only relatively recently. New Zealand is said to be
the first country in the world to have introduced universal suffrage, in
1893, although even here, women were only granted the right to stand for
parliament in 1919. Many countries have granted women the right to vote
first of all, and only several years later, have allowed them to stand for
elected office. Saudi Arabia has only granted women the power to
vote in elections in 2011.
Today even in established democracies, there are other sections of society, which commonly include immigrants, migrant workers, prisoners and children, who are not given the right to vote, even though many of them might pay taxes and all are obliged to obey the laws of the land.
Prisoners are allowed to vote in 18 European countries.
Prisoners' rights to vote are restricted in 20 countries, depending on such things as length of sentence or severity of the crime committed, or the type of election.
In 9 European countries, prisoners are not allowed to vote at all. Prisoners' voting rights, Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/01764, last updated in 2012,
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01764
In the case of Hirst v. the United Kingdom in 2005, the European Court found that the universal ban on prisoners from voting in the UK was a violation of Article 3, Protocol 1 of the European Convention, which says that:
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."
Question: Can excluding certain sectors of society from the democratic process ever be justified?
Democracy and participation
I don't have any formula for ousting a dictator or building democracy.
All I can suggest is to forget about yourself and just think of your
people. It's always the people who make things happen.
Corazon Aquino
The most obvious ways to participate in government are to vote, or to
stand for office and become a representative of the people. Democracy,
however, is about far more than just voting, and there are numerous other
ways of engaging with politics and government. The effective functioning
of democracy, in fact, depends on ordinary people using these other means
as much as possible. If people only vote once every 4 or 5 years – or do
not vote at all – and if they do nothing else in the interim, then
government really cannot be said to be "by the people". It is hard to say
that such a system is a democracy.
You can read in more detail about ways of participating in the section on
Citizenship and Participation. Here are a few ideas – perhaps the minimum
that might be needed for members of parliament to be able to act
democratically, on your behalf:
Stay informed about what is happening, what is being decided "in the name
of the people", and in particular, about the decisions and actions being
taken by your own representative.
Make your opinions known – either to your representatives in parliament,
or to the media, or to groups working on particular issues. Without
feedback from "the people", leaders can only lead according to their own
will and priorities.
Where decisions appear to be undemocratic, or against human rights, or
even when you just feel strongly about them, make efforts to get your
voice heard, so that the policies may be reconsidered. The most effective
way of doing this is probably by joining with other people so that your
voice is louder.
Vote, when the possibility arises. If people do not vote, then members are effectively unaccountable.
Question: Have you ever participated in any of these ways (or others)?
Democracy and Human Rights
The connection between human rights and democracy is deep, and goes both ways: each is in some way dependent on the other, and incomplete without the other.
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country,
directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Article 21, part 1, UDHR
First of all, the values of equality and autonomy are also human rights values, and the right to take part in government is itself a human right. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) tells us that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government": so democracy is in fact the only form of government which is consistent with human rights.
However, a "democracy" is also incomplete without a thorough-going respect
for human rights. Taking part in government, in a genuine way, is almost
impossible to do without people having other basic rights respected.
Consider the following, as examples:
1. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (UDHR, Article 18). This is one of the first rights which are essential in a democracy: people need to be able to think freely, to hold whatever beliefs are important to them, without being punished for doing so. Governments throughout history have tried to limit this right because they are afraid that if people think about other forms of government, this will endanger the current system. So they have locked people away simply for thinking the "wrong" thoughts. (Such people are known as prisoners of conscience.) However, a society without a pluralism of views is not just intolerant; it also limits its own possibilities to develop in new and possibly improved directions.
2. Freedom of Expression (UDHR, Article 19). It is important not just to be able to think what you want, but also to be able to express that opinion out loud, whatever that opinion may be. If people are prevented from discussing their views with other people, or presenting them in the media, how can they "take part" in government? Their opinion has essentially been discounted from the possible alternatives under consideration.
Democracy doesn't recognize east or west; democracy is simply people's
will.
Shirin Ebadi
3. Freedom of peaceful assembly and association (UDHR Article 20). This right allows you to discuss ideas with others who want to do so, to form interest groups or lobbying groups, or to gather together for the purposes of protest against decisions you disagree with. Perhaps such an activity is sometimes inconvenient for governments; however it is essential if different views are to be made known and taken into account. And that is part of what democracy is all about.
These are just three human rights which are intrinsically bound up with the idea of democracy, but any infringement of other human rights will also affect the extent to which different people are able to take part in government. Poverty, poor health, or the lack of a home, can all make it more difficult for someone to have their voice heard, and diminish the impact of their choice, compared with others. Such infringements of rights almost certainly make it impossible for the person concerned to be elected to government office.
Question: How well are the three "democratic" rights (listed above) respected in your country?
Problems with democracy
Democracy doesn't mean much if you are hungry or homeless, or have no
health care or your children can't go to school; even if you have a
vote, democracy is not effective.
Susan George, President of ATTAC
Voter apathy
For a number of years, there has been concern about the status of democracy, perhaps particularly in the more established democracies. Much of this is based on the decreasing levels of citizen participation at elections, which appear to indicate a lack of interest and involvement on the part of citizens. A low voter turnout calls into question the legitimacy of so-called democratically elected governments, which are, in some countries, actually elected by a minority of the total electorate.
Elections and apathy
Turnout at elections to the European Parliament has fallen every year
since the first elections in 1979. In 2009, only 43% of the electorate
used their vote, and in some countries, turnout fell as low as 34%.
In national elections throughout Europe, turnout ranges from just over
50% in some countries, to over 90% in others.
Some countries, for example, Greece and Belgium in Europe, make voting
compulsory. In such countries turnout is obviously much higher than the
average for countries where voting is optional.
Question: What proportion of the electorate voted in your country's most recent elections?
Although it is undoubtedly a problem that people are increasingly failing to vote in elections, there are some studies which indicate that participation in different forms may actually be on the increase, for example, pressure groups, civic initiatives, consultative organs, and so on. These forms of participation are just as important to the effective functioning of democracy as voter turnout at elections, if not more so.
Democracy and civic participation
The so-called Arab Spring, where masses of people – many of them young –
took to the streets in order to express their dissatisfaction with the
government, has shown a new level of civic participation in countries
which have not traditionally been regarded as democracies. In Europe as
well, even in the more traditional democracies, "people power" appears to
have found a new lease of life: students have protested in many countries
against moves by governments to impose fees on education. Trade unions
have brought people onto the streets to protest about the impact of
economic cuts. In addition, autonomous groups of activists have invented
new and creative forms of demonstrating against climate change, the power
of large corporations, the withdrawal of key state services, and also
against oppressive measures of policing.
Rule of the Majority
A minority may be right, and a majority is always wrong.
Henrik Ibsen
There are two problems that are more intricately connected to the notion of representative democracy, and these concern minority interests. The first problem is that minority interests are often not represented through the electoral system: this may happen if their numbers are too few to reach the minimum level necessary for any representation. The second problem is that even if their numbers are represented in the legislative body, they will have a minority of representatives and these may not therefore be able to summon up the necessary votes to defeat the majority representatives. For these reasons, democracy is often referred to as "rule of the majority".
Majority rule, if not backed up by a guarantee of human rights for all, can lead to decisions which are harmful to minorities, and the fact that these decisions are the "will of the people" can provide no justification. The basic interests of minorities as well as majorities need to be safeguarded in any democratic system by adherence to human rights principles, reinforced by an effective legal mechanism, whatever the will of the majority may be.
Question: If the majority of the population is in favour of depriving certain people their human rights, do you think "the people should decide"?
The rise of nationalism
Democracy is best conceived as a process of democratization.
Patomäkim,Teivainen
A related problem is the worrying trends across Europe towards support for extreme right parties. These parties have often played on nationalist feelings, and have targeted "non-indigenous" members of the population, particularly asylum seekers, refugees, and members of religious minorities, and sometimes in violent ways. As a defence, such parties often appeal to their support among the population, and the democratic principle that they represent the opinions of a large number of people. However, where a party advocates violence in any form, and where it fails to respect the human rights of every member of the population, it has little right to appeal to democratic principles.
Depending on the extent of the problem, and the particular cultural context, it may be necessary to limit the right to freedom of expression of certain groups, despite the importance of this right to the democratic process. Most countries, for example, have laws against inciting racial hatred. This is regarded by the European Court as an acceptable limitation of freedom of expression, justified by the need to protect the rights of other members of society, or the structure of society itself.
Question: Is nationalism any different from racism?
Young People and Democracy
Young people often do not even have the vote, so how can they be a part of the democratic process? Many people would answer this question by saying that young people are not ready to be part of the process, and that only when they are 18 (or at whatever age their country gives them the vote) will they be able to participate.
In fact, many young people are politically very active long before they get the vote, and in some ways, the impact of such activity can be stronger than the single vote they receive later on – and may or may not decide to use – once every 4 or 5 years. Politicians are often anxious to appeal to the youth vote, so they may be more likely to listen to the concerns of young people.
Many young people are engaged in environmental groups, or in other protest
groups campaigning against war, against corporate exploitation, or against
child labour. Perhaps one of the most important ways that young people can
begin to be engaged in community life and political activity is at a local
level: here they will be more aware of the particular issues that are of
concern to them and those with whom they come into contact, and they will
be better able to have a direct impact. Democracy does not only deal with
national or international issues: it needs to begin in our own
neighbourhoods!
Youth organisations are one of the ways through which young people experience and practise democracy and, therefore, have an important role in democracy, provided, of course, that they are independent and democratic in the way they function!
Question: If a 16-year-old is considered mature enough to marry and get a job, should he or she not be able to vote?
Work of the Council of Europe
We will strive for our common goal of promoting democracy and good
governance of the highest quality, nationally, regionally and locally
for all our citizens.
Action Plan of the Warsaw Summit of the Council of Europe
(2005)
Democracy is one of the core values of the Council of Europe, together with human rights and the rule of law. The Council of Europe has a number of programmes and publications looking at the improvement and future of democracy. In 2005, the Forum for the Future of Democracy was established by the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe. The aim of the Forum is to "strengthen democracy, political freedoms and citizens' participation through the exchange of ideas, information and examples of best practices". A meeting of the Forum takes place every year, and brings together about 400 participants from the 47 Council of Europe member States and observer States.
Support for development and implementation of standards for democracy is carried by the European Commission for Democracy through Law – also known as the Venice Commission – which is the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional matters. The commission has been particularly active in assisting in the drafting of new constitutions or laws on constitutional courts, electoral codes, minority rights and the legal framework relating to democratic institutions.
In addition to this standard-setting work, the Council of Europe promotes democracy and its values by programmes on democratic participation, education for democratic citizenship and youth participation, because democracy is much more than voting in elections!
https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy
Core Principles of American Government
Rule of Law: Rights, Liberty, and Justice
In a free society, the laws that direct people’s behavior are specified and published (except in extreme cases of national security) and must be followed uniformly until they are amended through a specified process. As a republic not only with written laws but also with a written constitution, the United States subjects the government as well as the people to rules. The rule of law is law according to rules. We also have processes for amending the Constitution and changing the rules.
Political legitimacy requires that officials exercise powers only in accordance with stated law that respects fundamental rights such as free speech and due process. For instance, judges who follow the law and standard procedures in issuing their judgments are often said to have provided due process, even when observers are disappointed by the outcome of a fair process.
The Constitution’s Bill of Rights identifies several rights and elements of due process. The First Amendment recognizes the rights of free speech and press, religion, assembly, and petition of government—core ways that we develop opinions and knowledge, communicate with one another, and interact with our government. We still debate the contours of such rights, such as how to distinguish free speech from punishable conduct that includes speech, and what constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, such as requiring disclosure of passwords or engaging in civil asset forfeiture prior to conviction of a suspect.
Equal Protection of the Laws: Rights, Liberty, and Justice for All
In a fair society, all persons are equal before the law with respect to irrelevant characteristics. Government actors should not discriminate on the basis of any such characteristic when legislating, enforcing, or interpreting the law, and particular characteristics may be specified as off limits to such discrimination.
“Protected classes” are explicitly named in various laws and the U.S. Constitution. After the Civil War, the “Reconstruction Amendments” to the Constitution, among other things, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude (except as punishment after conviction for a crime); provided equal protections of citizenship, due process, and other rights, without discrimination, to all persons who are born or naturalized in the country and subject to the country’s jurisdiction; and protected the voting rights of citizens against discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Later, the 19th Amendment protected the right of citizens to vote without discrimination on the basis of sex.
We still debate whether and how the Constitution requires protection of additional characteristics, which characteristics should be explicitly protected, how to properly account for those characteristics where they are relevant, what counts as discrimination, and whether affirmative steps are morally or legally required to address past discrimination.
Separation of Powers
The concept of the “structural constitution” includes themes such as separation of powers and federalism, together with checks and balances among the powers. In a government with separation of powers—in contrast to an absolute monarchy—different parts of the government perform different functions and should not encroach upon each other’s sphere. The legislative power enacts law, the executive power executes it, and the judicial power resolves specific legal disputes. Our written constitution sets boundaries among the different powers, which are constituted as three branches of government. The legitimacy, politicization, and limits of the “administrative state” are deeply debated: Can Congress legitimately delegate its legislative powers to supposedly nonpartisan executive agencies and independent agencies, especially agencies that exercise all three powers of government within themselves?
Federalism
The Constitution recognizes that sovereign state powers are independent of the federal power. It also gives the states various roles in constituting the federal government. For example, state electors choose the federal president, and the people of each state send representatives to the Senate. Citizens may work through the states to amend the Constitution. The Constitution reserves certain powers, such as declaring war, to the federal government. We still debate the areas in which state and federal laws can preempt each other—and whether particular topics are better left to the states (or to local government or to voluntary prerogatives) as opposed to national power.
Checks and Balances
The separate powers of government are limited not only by boundaries set in the Constitution but also by one another. The Constitution specifies, for instance, that the President (executive branch) can veto legislation and that the Congress (legislative branch) can override the veto. Longstanding tradition holds that the Supreme Court (judicial branch) can declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional and can prevent or undo such legislative and executive actions. The legislative branch has the power to impeach, convict, and remove from office members of the other branches. The President traditionally is thought to shape the Supreme Court through nomination of its justices. After the President nominates certain members of the executive and judicial branches for office, the Senate must consent before the President may appoint them.
We still debate whether particular actions are constitutional, whether executive appointments and Senate confirmations of appointees should involve ideological and political calculations apart from merit, and whether it is legitimate for another branch of government to thwart the core of a “settled” Supreme Court precedent.
Representative Government: Voting, Associations, and Parties
Government by the people, or self-government, occurs through elected and appointed representatives instead of by direct democracy. Eligible citizens vote for their representatives. People also voluntarily organize themselves into associations for common purposes, such as civic associations and political parties, locally and nationally. We debate who should be eligible to vote, what kinds of representation and voting mechanisms are best, and the degree to which a representative should represent the majority view of constituents rather than all constituents or the representative’s own view of what is best. We also debate the advantages and disadvantages of having a political system dominated by two parties.
Pluralism, Unity, and Toleration
Many of the elements above help guard against the tyranny of the majority and preserve rights for minorities. In areas such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, even an overwhelming majority may not force the smallest minority to comply with the majority’s views and values. Rather than use government power to force compliance, rather than permit individuals to resolve their differences through violence, and rather than use violence when a new majority or political party is able to take power (the military is subject to civilian control), a pluralistic society relies on norms of tolerance, debate, and educated citizenship. We still debate the degree to which we are one American people in all our diversity.
Core Principles of American Government (page no longer exists)
Democracy and Citizenship
Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all citizens, directly or through their freely elected representatives.
Democracy is a set of principles and practices that protect human freedom; it is the institutionalization of freedom.
Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.
Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that local government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.
Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.
Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens. Elections in a democracy cannot be facades that dictators or a single party hide behind, but authentic competitions for the support of the people.
Democracy subjects governments to the rule of law and ensures that all citizens receive equal protection under the law and that their rights are protected by the legal system.
Democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation's unique political, social, and cultural life. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform practices.
Citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.
Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. Democracies recognize that reaching consensus requires compromise and that it may not always be attainable. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”
Caribbean Elections - Democracy and Citizenship
http://www.caribbeanelections.com/education/democracy/democracy.asp
| Set 1 | - Questions of proceedings: the choice of the right proceedings to enact direct democratic decision is crucial for the legitimacy and credibility of a popular decision.
2 - Popular decisions should be reversible with an equally legitimate decision and (possibly) held regularly
If the voting population is sovereign, then it should also be able to reverse a decision or just make an updated decision at any point of time.
3 - Implement first at the local government level, rather than at the national government level (in federal states).
4 - Fundamentals of the Referendum Law or Initiative Law should not be open to amendment prior to a popular vote in order to secure the stability of direct democracy
5 - An initiative requires the single-subject rule (unity of the matter)
| Set 3 | - How to prevent the tyranny of the majority: a main concern of a popular vote is the majority forcing its will onto minorities.
6 - Conflicts with existing basic rights have to be explicitly declared prior to the vote.
7 - The validity of a proposition is a legal matter and should be decided by a legal body, not a political body.
8 - The validity of the proposed popular vote should be confirmed prior to a vote.
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/8-principles-direct-democracy
Imagine a society in which everyone was perfectly free to do as he or she pleased. How long would it take for chaos to set in? Order implies a necessary loss of freedom if people are to survive. However, how far can order go? Democratic countries cherish Individual Freedom and generally believe that laws should not be Repressive; a little order can be sacrificed in the name of Liberty. So one kind of balance is between order and liberty.
Democratic societies also expect another kind of balance: a compromise between liberty and equality. Complete liberty logically leads to inequality. A strong or ambitious person might acquire more goods and property than another, and someone is bound to dominate. But the line has to be drawn before an individual seizes power that greatly restricts the liberties of others.
https://www.ushistory.org/gov/1d.asp
Core Democratic Values Descriptors
https://www.learningtogive.org/sites/default/files/handouts/Core_Democratic_Descriptors.pdf
The following analysis uses a simple model of the key elements of democ- racy as it exists today:
1 - Citizen involvement in decision malung
2 - A system of representation
3 - The rule of law
4 - An electoral system-majorir) rule
5 - Some degree of equality among citizens
6 - Some degree of liberty; or freedom granted to or retained by citizens
7 - Education
Chapter 3 - The Principles of Democracy
https://www.sjsu.edu/people/ken.nuger/courses/pols120/Ch-3-Principles-of-Democracy.pdf
More Links
Currently, no unified set of principles provide a foundation for the democratic elections processes in 50 states and over 9000 voting jurisdictions. Common sense principles can effectively guide the urgently needed reform of our voting systems.
The Principles for Democratic Elections — National Election Defense Coalition
https://www.electiondefense.org/principles
Essay on Democracy: Kinds, Basic Principles and Future of Democracy
……….
The Meaning of Democracy -types
https://dlc.dcccd.edu/usgov1-1/the-meaning-of-democracy
The Tenets of American Democracy | Boundless Political Science
……
Views of American democratic values and principles
Seven Principles of the Constitution
https://schools.nbisd.org/upload/page/0508/7%20principles%20reading.pdf
Free Textbook; Concepts And Principles Of Democratic Governance And Accountability
Chapter 3 - The Constitution
https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/92006/ch3_1.pdf
…………………………………….
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Abraham Lincoln