Democracy

Democracy[nb 1] is a form of government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state.[2][3][4] Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive or maximalist definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections.[5][6][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 elections to do so. The definition of "the people" and the ways authority is shared among them or delegated by them have changed over time and at varying rates in different countries. Features of democracy often include freedom of assembly, association, personal property, freedom of religion and speech, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental 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 or presidential democracy. 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.[7][8]

The term appeared in the 5th century BC in Greek city-states, notably Classical Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite".[9] 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 general population of a state, such as authoritarian systems. Historically a rare and vulnerable form of government,[10] democratic systems of government have become more prevalent since the 19th century, in particular with various waves of democratization.[11] Democracy garners considerable legitimacy in the modern world,[12] as public opinion across regions tends to strongly favor democratic systems of government relative to alternatives,[13][14] and as even authoritarian states try to present themselves as democratic.[15][16] Democracy more consistently results in improved health, education and economic outcomes.[17] 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[update].[18][19] At the same time, while representative democracy is widely valued, Pew Research Center found that dissatisfaction with democratic performance is common even in many established democracies.[20][21]

## Contents

* 1 Characteristics
* 2 History
* 2.1 Origins
* 2.1.1 Greece and Rome
* 2.1.2 Ancient India
* 2.1.3 Americas
* 2.1.4 Africa
* 2.2 Middle Ages
* 2.3 Modern era
* 2.3.1 Early modern period
* 2.3.2 18th and 19th centuries
* 2.3.3 20th and 21st centuries
* 3 Theory
* 3.1 Early theory
* 3.2 Contemporary theory
* 3.2.1 Aggregation
* 3.2.1.1 Median mandate
* 3.2.2 Polyarchy
* 3.2.3 Deliberation
* 3.2.4 Types of governmental democracies
* 3.2.4.1 Basic forms
* 3.2.4.1.1 Direct
* 3.2.4.1.2 Semi-direct
* 3.2.4.1.3 Lot system
* 3.2.4.1.4 Representative
* 3.2.4.1.5 Parliamentary
* 3.2.4.1.6 Presidential
* 3.2.5 Typology
* 3.2.5.1 Constitutional monarchy
* 3.2.5.2 Republic
* 3.2.5.3 Liberal
* 3.2.5.4 Socialist
* 3.2.5.5 Marxist
* 3.2.5.6 Anarchist
* 3.2.5.7 Sortition
* 3.2.5.8 Consociational
* 3.2.5.9 Majoritarian
* 3.2.5.10 Consensus
* 3.2.5.11 Ethnic
* 3.2.5.12 Inclusive
* 3.2.5.13 Participatory
* 3.2.5.14 Procedural
* 3.2.5.15 Radical
* 3.2.5.16 Religious
* 3.2.5.17 Cosmopolitan
* 3.2.5.18 Creative
* 3.2.5.19 Guided
* 3.3 Comparison
* 3.4 Measurement of democracy
* 4 Non-governmental democracy
* 4.1 Shareholder democracy
* 5 Justification
* 5.1 Legitimacy
* 5.2 Better decision-making
* 5.3 Economic success
* 6 Criticism
* 7 Democratic transitions
* 7.1 Democratization
* 7.1.1 Democracy promotion
* 7.2 Autocratization
* 7.2.1 Disruption
* 8 Influence of the media
* 9 See also
* 10 Footnotes
* 11 References
* 11.1 Works cited
* 12 Further reading
* 13 External links

## Characteristics

The Parthenon is considered a symbol of democracy.

Script error: No such module "owidslider". In purely representative democracies, democracy is understood to be defined by free voting.[1][8] No consensus exists on a precise definition of democracy[22] (see also In the search of common understanding below), and many approaches have been taken to define it. A study identified 2,234 adjectives used to describe democracy in the English language.[23]

Yet, there is a profound understanding of its meaning – like that of Abraham Lincoln:

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people"

or of Karl Popper saying 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.[24]

Democratic principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes, even if not every vote cast elects someone.[25]

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,[26][27] 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 freely expressed will of people is exercised."[28]

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.[29] Legal equality, political freedom and rule of law[30] are often identified by commentators as foundational characteristics for a well-functioning democracy.[22]

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.[31][32] In India, parliamentary sovereignty is subject to the Constitution of India which includes judicial review.[33] Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles also are potentially applicable to private organisations, such as clubs, societies and firms.

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, 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 "fair", i.e., just and equitable. In some countries, 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.[34][35]

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.[36] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of all the voters, democracy can also be characterised as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in lawmaking.[37]

Republics, 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.[38] Classically the term "republic" encompassed both democracies and aristocracies and their mixtures.[39][40][41] 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 monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, where the monarch is not a ruler.

## History

Main article: Social:History of democracy

Script error: No such module "owidslider".

Nineteenth-century painting by Philipp Foltz depicting the Athenian politician Pericles delivering his famous funeral oration in front of the Assembly[42]

Democratic assemblies are as old as the human species and are found throughout human history,[43] but up until the nineteenth century, major political figures have largely opposed democracy.[44] Republican theorists linked democracy to small size: as political units grew in size, the likelihood increased that the government would turn despotic.[10][45] At the same time, small political units were vulnerable to conquest.[10] 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."[46] 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.[10][47] Forms of democracy occurred organically in societies around the world that had no contact with each other.[48][49]

### Origins

#### Greece and Rome

See also: Social:Athenian democracy

The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens during classical antiquity.[50][51] The word comes from dêmos '(common) people' and krátos 'force/might'.[52] Under Cleisthenes, what is generally held as the first example of a type of democracy in the sixth-century BC (508–507 BC) was established in Athens. Cleisthenes is referred to as "the father of Athenian democracy".[53] The first attested use of the word democracy is found in prose works of the 430s BC, such as 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, 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.[54]

Modern bust of Cleisthenes, known as "the father of Athenian democracy", on view at the Ohio Statehouse, Columbus, Ohio

Athenian democracy took the form of direct democracy, and it had two distinguishing features: the random selection of ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices,[55] and a legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens.[56] 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.[57][58][contradictory] Effectively, only 1 in 4 residents in Athens qualified as citizens. Owning land was not a requirement for citizenship.[59] 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.[60]

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 and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.[61] 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"[62]), 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.[63]

Range voting appeared in Sparta as early as 700 BC. The 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.[64]

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.[65]

In addition, the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom created a system with a democratic element in the form of many different popular assamblies.

Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to many aspects of democracy, only a fraction of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for magistrates. The votes of the powerful were given more weight through a system of weighted voting, so most high officials, including members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and noble families.[66] The Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries.[67]

#### Ancient India

Vaishali, capital city of the Vajjika League (Vrijji mahajanapada) of India, is considered one of the first examples of a republic around the 6th century BC.[68][69][70]

#### 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[71]), well before contact with the Europeans. This democracy continues to the present day and is the world's oldest standing representative democracy.[72][73]

#### Africa

Main article: Philosophy: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 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.[74][75] 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. 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.[76] 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 whose members were chosen by sortition. In the 10th–15th century 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.[77][78]

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.[79][80] The first representative national assembly in England was Simon de Montfort's Parliament in 1265.[81][82] The emergence of 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.[83]

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,[84] as well as the presence of nobility and religious elites.[85] Scholars have also linked the emergence of representative government to Europe's relative political fragmentation.[86] 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.[87]

In Poland, noble democracy was characterized by an increase in the activity of the middle 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 sejmik (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.[88]

### Modern era

#### Early modern period

Over the centuries, the English Parliament progressively limited the power of the English monarchy, a process that arguably culminated in the English Civil War.

In 17th century England, there was renewed interest in Magna Carta.[89] 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,[90][91] during which the idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation during the Putney Debates of 1647.[92] Subsequently, the Protectorate (1653–59) and the English Restoration (1660) restored more autocratic rule, although Parliament passed the 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 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.[93][94] Economic historians Douglass North and 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.[95]

John Locke expanded on Thomas Hobbes's social contract theory and developed the concept of natural rights, the right to private property and the principle of consent of the governed. His ideas form the ideological basis of liberal democracies today.

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 (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 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).[96] 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.[97] Furthermore, Locke asserted that governments were legitimate only if they held the consent of the governed. For Locke, citizens had the 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 liberal thought and profoundly influenced the leaders of the American Revolution and later the French Revolution.[98] 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 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;[99] the hard power of these local assemblies varied greatly throughout the colonial time period however officially they held only small amounts of devolved power, as ultimate authority belonged to the Crown and 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.[100][101][102]

#### 18th and 19th centuries

William Pitt the Younger addressing the House of Commons of the United Kingdom

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. Two key documents of the 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".[103] However, Parliament was only elected by male property owners, which amounted to 3% of the population in 1780.[104] The first known British person of African heritage to vote in a general election, Ignatius Sancho, voted in 1774 and 1780.[105]

During the Age of Liberty in Sweden (1718–1772), civil rights were expanded and power shifted from the monarch to parliament.[106] 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).[107] This Corsican Constitution was the first based on Enlightenment principles and included female suffrage, something that was not included in most other democracies until the 20th century.

The Thirteen British Colonies on the east coast of North America issued a Declaration of Independence in 1776

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.[108] 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.[109] 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 nor extend voting rights in the United States, instead leaving the issue of suffrage to the individual states.[110] Generally, states limited suffrage to white male property owners and taxpayers.[111] At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, about 6% of the population was eligible to vote.[112] The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited U.S. citizenship to whites only.[113] The 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.[114]

Inspired by Enlightenment philosophers, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen had a significant impact on the development of popular conceptions of individual liberty and democracy in Europe and worldwide.

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.[115] The 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.[116][117] Nonetheless, the 1791 Constitution helped keep alive Polish aspirations for the eventual restoration of the country's sovereignty over a century later.

In the United States, the 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 presidential election.[118] 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).[119][120][121] In the 1860 United States census, the slave population had grown to four million,[122] and in Reconstruction after the Civil War, three constitutional amendments were passed: the 13th Amendment (1865) that ended slavery; the 14th Amendment (1869) that gave black people citizenship, and the 15th Amendment (1870) that gave black males a nominal right to vote.[123][124][nb 2] 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.[125][126]

1850s lithograph marking the establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848

The voting franchise in the United Kingdom was expanded and made more uniform in a 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.[127] During that year, several revolutions broke out in Europe as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic government.[128]

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.[129] Provisional Electoral Regulations were issued, stating that the elected members of the Provincial Administrative Councils would elect members to the first Parliament. Later that year, a new constitution was promulgated, which provided for a bicameral Parliament with a Senate appointed by the Sultan and a popularly elected Chamber of Deputies. Only men above the age of 30 who were competent in 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.[130]

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.[131]

#### 20th and 21st centuries

The number of nations 1800–2018 scoring 8 or higher on Polity5 scale, another widely used measure of democracy

20th-century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy", variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonisation, and religious and economic circumstances.[11] Global waves of "democratic regression" reversing democratization, have also occurred in the 1920s and 30s, in the 1960s and 1970s, and in the 2010s.[132][133]

Painting depicting the opening of the first Australian Parliament in 1901, one of the events that formed part of the first wave of democracy in the early 20th century

World War I and the dissolution of the autocratic Ottoman and 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 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.[134]

The Soviet of Workers' Deputies of Saint Petersburg in 1905: Leon Trotsky in the center. The 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 American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[135]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of government change. However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany fell into the non-democratic 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.[136] Countries that were once part of the British Empire often adopted the British Westminster system.[137][138]

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

> 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.

— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21, United Nations, 1948

Nelson Mandela voting in the 1994 multi-racial elections in South Africa. It was the first time he had voted in his life.[139][140]

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" 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.[nb 3] This was followed by countries in East and South Asia by the mid-to-late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of Soviet oppression, contributed to the 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 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 Asian democracy.

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 Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.

Age of democracies at the end of 2015[141][needs update]

According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972).[142] 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.[143] Also in 2007 the United Nations declared 15 September the International Day of Democracy.[144]

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.[145] [146][147] Most electoral democracies continue to exclude those younger than 18 from voting.[148] 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,[149][150] as populist and nationalist political forces have gained ground everywhere from Poland (under the Law and Justice party) to the Philippines (under Rodrigo Duterte).[149][132] In a Freedom House report released in 2018, Democracy Scores for most countries declined for the 12th consecutive year.[151] 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 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 failed coup attempt during a government crackdown .[152]

Countries autocratising (red) or democratising (blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020). Countries in grey are substantially unchanged.[153][needs update]Template:Relevant Green: countries that claim to be a democracy Red: countries that do not claim to be democratic (only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Brunei, Afghanistan, Burkina Faso and the Vatican do not claim to be democratic as of 2026; Burkina Faso dissolved all political parties in 2026[154])

"Democratic backsliding" in the 2010s were attributed to economic inequality and social discontent,[155] personalism,[156] poor government's management of the COVID-19 pandemic,[157][158] as well as other factors such as manipulation of civil society, "toxic polarization", foreign disinformation campaigns,[159] racism and nativism, excessive executive power,[160][161][162] and decreased power of the opposition.[163] 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.[164]

## Theory

"Democratic theory" redirects here. For other uses, see Democracy (disambiguation).

### Early theory

Aristotle's democratic theory contrasted rule by the many (democracy/timocracy), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy/elitism), and with rule by a single person (tyranny/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).[165][166]

A common view among early and renaissance Republican theorists was that democracy could only survive in small political communities.[167] 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.[167] 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.[167] 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."[167] Jean-Jacques 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."[167]

### Contemporary theory

Among modern political theorists, there are different fundamental conceptions of democracy.

#### Aggregation

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.

According to the minimalist democracy conception, elections are a mechanism for competition between politicians. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.[168]

Anthony Downs argues that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individuals and governments.[169] On the other hand, direct democracy, where citizens vote directly on legislative proposals, can show better aggregation in cases of differences in preferences between elites and voters.[170]

##### Median mandate

According to the median voter theorem the political representativeness can be evaluated by comparing how close laws and policies are to the views of the median voter along the political spectrum.[171] The median mandate views the preferences of the median voter as granting political legitimacy.[172][173]

#### Polyarchy

Main article: Social:Polyarchy

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. He uses the term polyarchy ("rule by many") 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.[174] Similarly, Ronald Dworkin argues that "democracy is a substantive, not a merely procedural, ideal."[175]

#### Deliberation

Main article: Deliberative democracy

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.[176][177][178] If the decision-makers cannot reach consensus after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule. Citizens assemblies are considered by many scholars as practical examples of deliberative democracy,[179][180][181] with a recent OECD report identifying citizens assemblies as an increasingly popular mechanism to involve citizens in governmental decision-making.[182] Proponents of direct democracy view citizens do not rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socialises and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites.

#### Types of governmental democracies

Main article: Social: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.[183][184] 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.[185][186][187]

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.[188] 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.

If the head of state is democratically elected then the polity is called a democratic republic

###### Direct

Main article: Philosophy:Direct democracy

A Landsgemeinde (in 2009) of the canton of Glarus, an example of direct democracy in Switzerland In 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 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. Proponents like Jean-Jacques Rousseau argue the direct approach increases legitimacy.[189] A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:

* Change constitutional laws,
* Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws

Within modern-day representative governments, certain electoral tools like referendums, citizens' initiatives and recall elections are referred to as forms of direct democracy.[190] 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 Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus,[191] the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities,[192] communities affiliated with the CIPO-RFM,[193] the Bolivian city councils of FEJUVE,[194] and Kurdish cantons of Rojava.[195]

###### 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. states, where frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives.

The Swiss confederation is a semi-direct democracy.[191] At the federal level, citizens can propose changes to the constitution (federal popular initiative) or ask for a referendum to be held on any law voted by the parliament.[191] 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).[191] Although in the past 120 years less than 250 initiatives have been put to referendum.[196]

Examples include the extensive use of referendums in the US state of California, which is a state that has more than 20 million voters.[197]

In New England, town meetings 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.[198]

###### 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.[199]

###### Representative

Main article: Social:Representative democracy

Representative democracy involves the election of government officials by the people being represented.[200] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Most western countries have representative systems.[191]

Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate through proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. 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,[201][202] pointing out the contradictions of representation mechanisms with democracy.[203][204]

###### Parliamentary

Main article: Social:Parliamentary system

The Palace of Westminster in London, United Kingdom. The Westminster system originates from the British Houses of Parliament.

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.[205][206][207][208]

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.[209] 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 article: Social: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 are not easily changed. The president has direct control over the cabinet, specifically appointing the cabinet members.[209]

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.[209]

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.[209]

#### Typology

##### Constitutional monarchy

Main article: Social:Constitutional monarchy

King Charles III, a constitutional monarch

Many countries such as the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, 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.[31][93] Strongly limited constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, have been referred to as crowned republics by writers such as H. G. Wells.[210]

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 article: Philosophy: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, 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.[211]

The Founding Fathers of the United States often criticised direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a direct democracy from a republic was that the former depended on small size 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.[212] Accordingly, during Philadelphia convention Madison called election of representatives by large territories "the only defence against the inconveniencies of democracy consistent with the democratic form of Govt."[213]

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."[214] What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[215] 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[216] asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[217]

##### Liberal

Main article: Social:Liberal democracy

A liberal democracy is a representative democracy which enshrines a 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 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.[218]

##### Socialist

Main article: Social:Socialist democracy

Socialist thought has several different views on democracy, for example social democracy and democratic socialism. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory, industrial, economic and/or workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.

##### Marxist

Main article: Social:Democracy in Marxism

Marxist theory supports a democratic society centering the working class.[219] Some Marxists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy or workers' councils (which are sometimes called soviets). This system can begin with workplace democracy and can manifest itself as soviet democracy or dictatorship of the proletariat.[220][221] Trotskyist groups have interpreted socialist democracy to be synonymous with multi-party far-left representation, autonomous union organizations, worker's control of production,[222] internal party democracy and the mass participation of the working masses.[223][224] Some communist parties support a soviet republic with democratic centralism.[225] The Whole-process people's democracy applies consequentialism to democracy, prioritising results delivered to the people over procedure.[226][227]

##### Anarchist

Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a 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.[228] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticised individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[229] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[230]

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.[231]

##### Sortition

Main article: 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 Renaissance Florence[232] and is still used in modern jury selection and citizens' assemblies.

##### Consociational

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.[233] 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.[needs update]

##### Majoritarian

This section is an excerpt from Majoritarian democracy[ edit ]

##### Consensus

Main article: Social:Consensus democracy

Consensus democracy[234] 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.[235] Constitutions typically require consensus or supermajorities.[236]

##### Ethnic

This section is an excerpt from Ethnic democracy[ edit ]

##### Inclusive

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, moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social realm, i.e. 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.[237][238][239][240][241][242]

##### Participatory

Main article: Social:Participatory politics

A parpolity or participatory polity is a theoretical form of democracy that is ruled by a 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.

##### Procedural

This section is an excerpt from Procedural democracy[ edit ]

##### Radical

Main article: Social:Radical democracy

Radical democracy is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Radical democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision-making processes.[243]

##### Religious

This section is an excerpt from Religious democracy[ edit ]

##### Cosmopolitan

Main article: Social: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.[244]

Cosmopolitan democracy has been promoted, among others, by physicist Albert Einstein,[245] writer Kurt Vonnegut, columnist George Monbiot, and professors David Held and Daniele Archibugi.[246] 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

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"[247] 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 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 article: Social:Guided democracy

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".[248] 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.[249]

### Comparison

Same country (Russia), seven approaches, concepts (Polity IV, Freedom House, The Economist Democracy Index, CAM, VAN, UDS, PACL)[250]

The search for a common approach to conceptualize, measure and compare democracy remains a challenge in modern political science.[251] This challenge strikes through to measuring, assessing and comparing the quality of democracy, as Seva Gunitsky pointed in 2015 in the Washington Post, based upon his research for Ranking the World – Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance,[250] that measuring democracy can mislead as much as clarify – a problem for academics, policy-makers and anyone who cares about democracy.[252]

In his contribution Lost in the Gray Zone: Competing Measures of Democracy in the Former Soviet Republics to Ranking the World,[250] he, on the example of former Soviet republics, examines fundamental problems with measures of democracy, observing that indices often disagree and occasionally draw contradictory conclusions from observing the same event. He argues, that this reflects inherent tradeoffs in conceptualizing democratic governance, which arise from fundamental normative disagreements about a highly contested concept.

In 2011, Michael Coppedge, John Gerring et al. proposed an approach to such conceptualization and measurement. In their paper Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach[251] they review some of the weaknesses among contemporary and older approaches, then lay out their approach, characterizing it as historical, multidimensional, disaggregated, and transparent. The authors propose to create a new set of four features to conceptualize and measure democracy. First, historical, extending indicators of democracy back through modern history, wherever possible. Second, a multidimensional approach to the problem of conceptualizing democracy. Third, to collect information relevant to democracy at a highly disaggregated level. Fourth, transparent, a strategy for data collection and presentation that should enhance the precision, validity, transparency, and legitimacy of the resulting indicators. They also sum up the conceptions, and/or aspects, of democracy into six – electoral, liberal, majoritarian, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian, which taken together offer a fairly comprehensive accounting of the concept of democracy as it is employed today (see overview in the table below).

* * *

Conceptions of democracy by Michael Coppedge, John Gerring et al., 2011[251]

* * *

|  | Principles  | Question  | Institutions

* * *

I. | Electoral
| Contestation, competition  | Are government offices filled by free and fair multiparty elections?  | Elections, political parties, competitiveness and turnover
II. | Liberal
| Limited government, multiple veto points, horizontal accountability, individual rights, civil liberties, transparency  | Is political power decentralized & constrained?  | Multiple, independent, and decentralized, with special focus on the role of the media, interest groups, the judiciary, and a written constitution with explicit guarantees
III. | Majoritarian
| Majority rule, centralization, vertical accountability  | Does the majority (or plurality) rule?  | Consolidated and centralized, with special focus on the role of political parties
IV. | Participatory | Government by the people  | Do ordinary citizens participate in politics?[253] | Election law, civil society, local government, direct democracy
V. | Deliberative | Government by reason  | Are political decisions the product of public deliberation?  | Media, hearings, panels, other deliberative bodies[254]
VI. | Egalitarian | Political equality  | Are all citizens equally empowered?  | Designed to ensure equal participation, representation, protection, and politically relevant resources

* * *

### Measurement of democracy

Main article: Social:Democracy indices

The 2024 The Economist Democracy Index map

Full democracies

9.00–10.00

8.00–8.99

Flawed democracies

7.00–7.99

6.00–6.99

|  Hybrid regimes

5.00–5.99

4.00–4.99

|  Authoritarian regimes

3.00–3.99

2.00–2.99

1.00–1.99

0.00–0.99

|
|

V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index map for 2025[255]

0.90–1.00

0.80–0.89

0.70–0.79

0.60–0.69

0.50–0.59

0.40–0.49

0.30–0.39

0.20–0.29

0.10–0.19

0.00–0.09

No data

|
|

Measurement of democracy varies according to the different fundamental conceptions of democracy. Minimalist democracy evaluations focus on free and fair elections,[168] while maximalist democracy evaluates additional values, such as human rights, deliberation, economic outcomes or state capacity.[256]

## 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 organisations decide policy and leadership by voting. Most trade unions and cooperatives are governed by democratic elections. Corporations are ultimately governed by their shareholders 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 Islamic democracy or Islamocracy.[257]

### Shareholder democracy

Main article: Finance: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 executives. The shareholder democracy framework may be inaccurate for companies which have different classes of stock that further alter the distribution of voting rights.

## Justification

Several justifications for democracy have been postulated.[258]

### Legitimacy

Social contract theory argues that the legitimacy of government is based on consent of the governed, i.e. an election, and that political decisions must reflect the general will.[189] The public legitimacy of democracy varies by country, in some countries religious texts have more public support than the will of the people.[259]

### 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 the wisdom of the crowd. Democracy tends to improve conflict resolution.[260]

### Economic success

Main article: Finance:Democracy and economic growth

In Why Nations Fail, economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argue that democracies are more economically successful because undemocratic political systems tend to limit markets and favor 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.[261] Acemoglu said this was because democracies tended to invest more in health care and human capital, and reduce special treatment of regime allies.[262]

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.[263]

Unemployment is associated with anti-democratic beliefs.[264]

## Criticism

This section is an excerpt from Criticism of democracy[ edit ]

## Democratic transitions

Main article: Social:Democratic transition

Since c. 2010, the 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).[265][266]

### Democratization

Main article: Social:Democratization

This section is an excerpt from Democratization[ edit ]

Banner in Hong Kong asking for democracy, August 2019

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.[267] 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.[268][269]

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 democracy causes peace, but this study shows that, historically, peace has almost always predated the establishment of democracy.[270]

Carroll Quigley concludes that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy:[271][272] Democracy—this scenario—tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to obtain and use.[273] 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.[273] Similarly, Periclean Greece was an age of the citizen soldier and democracy.[274]

Other theories stressed the relevance of education and of human capital—and within them of cognitive ability to increasing tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and cognitive ability are distinguished:[275][need quotation to verify][276][277]

* 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.[278] 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.[279] 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.[279]

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.[280] 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.[281][282]

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.[283] This also affected the colonial institutions European countries established in Africa.[284] 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.[285] 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 places this process lead to democracy. These determinants defined the structure of the society moving the balance of political power.[286]

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

> 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.[287]

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.

The V-Dem Institute found 2026 ongoing democratization in 18 countries: Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Bazil, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Guatemala, Lesotho, Mauritius, Montenegro, Poland, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Thailand, The Gambia, and Zambia.[288]

#### Democracy promotion

Promotion of democracy can increase the quality of already existing democracies, reduce political apathy, and the chance of democratic backsliding. Democracy promotion measures include voting advice applications,[289] participatory democracy,[290] increasing electoral integrity, youth suffrage and civic education,[291] reducing barriers to entry for new political parties,[292] increasing proportionality,[293] reducing presidentialism[294] and aligning with median voter preferences.[295]

### Autocratization

The V-Dem Institute's indices of democracy indicate that worldwide democracy peaked in 2012, and has since declined, with the decline accelerating in the early 2020s.[296] Russia under Vladimir Putin has turned into an authoritarian state Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during whose tenure India, often called the "world's largest democracy," has faced significant democratic backsliding according to international indexes.[297]

This section is an excerpt from Democratic backsliding[ edit ]

Steven Levitsky says: "It's not up to voters to defend a democracy. That's asking far, far too much of voters, to cast their ballot on the basis of some set of abstract principles or procedures. With the exception of a handful of cases, voters never, ever — in any society, in any culture — prioritize democracy over all else. Individual voters worry about much more mundane things, as is their right. It is up to élites and institutions to protect democracy — not voters."[298]

Alexander Lukashenko is currently serving his seventh and final[299] term as the President of Belarus, leading many to claim he is "Europe's Last Dictator".

The V-Dem Institute found 2026 ongoing democratic backsliding in 44 countries: Afghanistan, Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Croatia, Georgia, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, El Salvador, Haiti, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Mali, Madagascar, Mauretania, Mexico, Moldova, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Slovakia, Slovenia, Senegal, Serbia, Romania, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.[288]

Global population-weighted democracy measures show faster autocratization in the last decades than country-based averages.[300] Autocratic countries tend to have a higher population growth.[301]

#### 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.[302] (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:
* Amending or suspending the constitution, 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.[302]
* 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.[303]

Democratic backsliding can end democracy in a gradual manner, by increasing emphasis on national security and eroding free and fair elections, 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.[304]

## Influence of the media

The theory of democracy relies on the implicit assumption that voters are well informed about social issues, policies, and candidates so that they can make a truly informed decision. Since the late 20th century there has been a growing concern that voters may be poorly informed due to the news media's focusing more on entertainment and gossip and less on serious journalistic research on political issues.[305][306]

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:[307]

* 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.[308] Commercial mass media are generally not accountable to anybody but their owners, and they have no obligation to serve a democratic function.[308][309] 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.[310][311]

The 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 races and less as debates about ideologies and issues. The dominating media focus on spin, conflict, and competitive strategies has made voters perceive the politicians as egoists rather than idealists. This fosters mistrust and a cynical attitude to politics, less civic engagement, and less interest in voting.[312][313][314] The ability to find effective political solutions to social problems is hampered when problems tend to be blamed on individuals rather than on structural causes.[313] 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.[315][316] 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.[317]

The responsiveness[318] 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.[309][314] 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.[309][317]

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.[319] 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 chambers.[320] 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.[321]

Many media scholars have discussed non-commercial news media with 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.[322][323] 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.[324] 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,[325] while such media are weak or non-existent in other countries including the US.[326] 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 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.[325][327][328]

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 filters of the large news media. This is often seen as an advantage for democracy.[329] The new possibilities for communication have fundamentally changed the way social movements 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.[330][331]

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.[330] In fact, studies show that false stories are going more viral than true stories.[332][333] The proliferation of false stories and conspiracy theories may undermine public trust in the political system and public officials.[333][321]

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.[334]

## See also

* Defensive democracy
* Democracy Ranking
* Democracy-Dictatorship Index
* Democratic peace theory
* Delegate model of representation
* Empowered democracy
* Energy democracy
* Industrial democracy
* Meritocracy
* Parliament in the Making
* Political representation of nature
* Power to the people
* Trustee model of representation

## Footnotes

1. ↑ from Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratía, from dēmos 'people' and krátos 'rule'[1]
2. ↑ The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868 altered the way each state is represented in the 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.
3. ↑ Portugal in 1974, Spain in 1975, Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and Chile in the early 1990s

## References

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Smith, Bonnie G., ed (2008). "Democracy". The Oxford Encyclopedia Women in World History. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195148909.001.0001/acref-9780195148909-e-241. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
2. ↑ Schwartzberg, Melissa (2014). "Democracy". The Encyclopedia of Political Thought. pp. 851–862. doi:10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0248. ISBN 978-1-4051-9129-6.
3. ↑ "Democracy | Definition, History, Meaning, Types, Examples, & Facts". 16 August 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy.
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Przeworski, Adam (2024). "Who Decides What Is Democratic?". Journal of Democracy 35 (3): 5–16. doi:10.1353/jod.2024.a930423. ISSN 1086-3214. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/930423.
5. ↑ Dahl, Robert A.; Shapiro, Ian; Cheibub, Jose Antonio (2003). The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-262-54147-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=B8THIuSkiqgC.
6. ↑ Møller, Jørgen; Skaaning, Svend-Erik (Jan 2013). "Regime Types and Democratic Sequencing". Journal of Democracy 24 (1): 142–155. doi:10.1353/jod.2013.0010. ISSN 1045-5736. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/regime-types-and-democratic-sequencing/.
7. ↑ Oxford English Dictionary: "democracy".
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Watkins, Frederick (1970). "Democracy". Encyclopædia Britannica. 7 (Expo '70 hardcover ed.). William Benton. pp. 215–23. ISBN 978-0-85229-135-1.
9. ↑ Wilson, N.G. (2006). Encyclopedia of ancient Greece. New York: Routledge. p. 511. ISBN 978-0-415-97334-2.
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Deudney, Daniel (9 November 2008). Bounding Power. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13830-5. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691138305/bounding-power.
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Diamond, Larry (15 September 2015). "Timeline: Democracy in Recession". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/13/opinion/larry-diamond-democracy-in-recession-timeline.html.
12. ↑ Fukuyama, Francis (2006) (in en). The End of History and the Last Man. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-8455-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=NdFpQwKfX2IC.
13. ↑ Wike, Richard; Fetterolf, Janell; Smerkovich, Maria; Austin, Sarah; Gubbala, Sneha; Lippert, Jordan (28 February 2024). "1. Attitudes toward different types of government systems" (in en-US). https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/02/28/attitudes-toward-different-types-of-government-systems/.
14. ↑ Anderson, Christopher J.; Bol, Damien; Ananda, Aurelia (2021). "Humanity's Attitudes about Democracy and Political Leaders". Public Opinion Quarterly 85 (4): 957–986. doi:10.1093/poq/nfab056. ISSN 0033-362X. PMID 35035302.
15. ↑ Hyde, Susan D. (2011). The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-6125-5. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt7z647.
16. ↑ Guriev, Sergei; Treisman, Daniel (2022) (in en). Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-22446-6. https://books.google.com/books?id=4ThCEAAAQBAJ&pg=PR9.
17. ↑ Tudor, Maya (2025). "What Democracy Does … And Does Not Do". Journal of Democracy 36 (4): 5–19. doi:10.1353/jod.2025.a970345. ISSN 1086-3214. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/970345.
18. ↑ 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."
19. ↑ 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%)."
20. ↑ "Dissatisfaction with democracy remains widespread in many nations" (in en-US). 30 June 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/30/dissatisfaction-with-democracy-remains-widespread-in-many-nations/.
21. ↑ "Dissatisfaction with performance of democracy is common in many nations" (in en-US). 29 April 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/04/29/dissatisfaction-with-performance-of-democracy-is-common-in-many-nations/.
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Staff writer (22 August 2007). "Liberty and justice for some". The Economist (Economist Group). http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438. "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."
23. ↑ Gagnon, Jean-Paul (1 June 2018). "2,234 Descriptions of Democracy". Democratic Theory 5 (1): 92–113. doi:10.3167/dt.2018.050107. ISSN 2332-8894. http://berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/democratic-theory/5/1/dt050107.xml.
24. ↑ Popper, Karl (23 April 1988). "The open society and its enemies revisited", The Economist (2016 reprint).
25. ↑ "direct democracy | Definition, History, & Facts". https://www.britannica.com/topic/direct-democracy.
26. ↑ Dahl, Robert A.; Shapiro, Ian; Cheibub, José Antônio (2003). The democracy sourcebook. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-54147-3. Details.
27. ↑ Hénaff, Marcel; Strong, Tracy B. (2001). Public space and democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-3388-3.
28. ↑ United Nations. "Democracy". United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/democracy.
29. ↑ Kimber, Richard (September 1989). "On democracy". Scandinavian Political Studies 12 (3): 201, 199–219. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1989.tb00090.x. Full text.
30. ↑ Diamond, Larry; Morlino, Leonardo (2005). Assessing the Quality of Democracy. JHU Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8287-6. https://books.google.com/books?id=-eXJMXnraPQC&pg=PA3.
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Kopstein, Jeffrey; Lichbach, Mark; Hanson, Stephen E., eds (2014). Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order (4, revised ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–39. ISBN 978-1-139-99138-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=L2jwAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38.
32. ↑ "Parliamentary sovereignty". UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/none ; "Independence". Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/.
33. ↑ Daily Express News (2 August 2013). "All-party meet vows to uphold Parliament supremacy". The New Indian Express (Express Publications (Madurai) Limited). http://newindianexpress.com/nation/All-party-meet-vows-to-uphold-Parliament-supremacy/2013/08/02/article1713808.ece.
34. ↑ Barak, Aharon (2006). The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12017-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX7mAbjGOYC&pg=PA27.
35. ↑ Kelsen, Hans (October 1955). "Foundations of democracy". Ethics 66 (1): 1–101. doi:10.1086/291036.
36. ↑ Nussbaum, Martha (2000). Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00385-8.
37. ↑ Snyder, Richard; Samuels, David (2006), "Devaluing the vote in Latin America", Electoral systems and democracy, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 168, ISBN 978-0-8018-8475-7.
38. ↑ R. R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution: Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800 (1959)
39. ↑ John Adams, Letter to Roger Sharman
40. ↑ Montesquieu, Spirit of Law, Bk. II, ch. 2–3.
41. ↑ Everdell, William R. (2000). The end of kings: a history of republics and republicans (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-22482-4. https://archive.org/details/endofkingshistor00ever.
42. ↑ "Pericles' Funeral Oration". the-athenaeum.org. http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/detail.php?ID=131618.
43. ↑ Graeber 2013, p. 184.
44. ↑ Graeber 2013, pp. 168–169.
45. ↑ Thorhallsson, Baldur; Steinsson, Sverrir (2017), "Small State Foreign Policy", Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.484, ISBN 978-0-19-022863-7, https://osf.io/7mrj9/
46. ↑ de Montesquieu, Charles. "Book IX. Of Laws in the Relation They Bear to a Defensive Force". The Spirit of Laws. Constitution Society. https://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_09.htm.
47. ↑ "Democratic Internationalism: An American Grand Strategy for a Post-exceptionalist Era | Council on Foreign Relations" (in en). 18 December 2012. https://www.cfr.org/event/democratic-internationalism-american-grand-strategy-post-exceptionalist-era.
48. ↑ Graymont, Barbara (1972). The Iroquois in the American Revolution ([1st ed.] ed.). [Syracuse, N.Y.]: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-0083-1. OCLC 194977.
49. ↑ Priestland, David (23 October 2021). "The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow review – inequality is not the price of civilisation". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. 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.
50. ↑ John Dunn, Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC – 1993 AD, Oxford University Press, 1994, ISBN 978-0-19-827934-1
51. ↑ Raaflaub, Ober & Wallace 2007.
52. ↑ Luciano Canfora, La democrazias:Storia di un'ideologia, Laterza (2004) 2018 pp.12–13
53. ↑ 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.
54. ↑ Kurt A. Raaflaub, Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, pp. 108, 109.
55. ↑ Aristotle Book 6
56. ↑ Grinin, Leonid E. (2004). The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues. Uchitel' Publishing House. http://www.socionauki.ru/book/early_state_en/.
57. ↑ Davies, John K. (1977). "Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and the Alternatives". The Classical Journal 73 (2): 105–121. ISSN 0009-8353.
58. ↑ "Women and Family in Athenian Law". http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_women_and_family?page=4.
59. ↑ Manville, Philip Brook (14 July 2014). The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-6083-8. https://books.google.com/books?id=RBcABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA94.
60. ↑ 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
61. ↑ Raaflaub, Ober & Wallace 2007, p. 5.
62. ↑ Ober & Hedrick 1996, p. 107.
63. ↑ Clarke & Foweraker 2001, pp. 194–201.
64. ↑ Terrence A. Boring, Literacy in Ancient Sparta, Leiden Netherlands (1979). ISBN 978-90-04-05971-9
65. ↑ Deacy, Susan (2008). Athena. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 145–49. ISBN 978-0-415-30066-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=kIiCAgAAQBAJ&q=Athena+and+Ares+Darmon&pg=PA163.
66. ↑ "Ancient Rome from the earliest times down to 476 A.D". Annourbis.com. http://annourbis.com/Ancient-Rome/8rome10.html.
67. ↑ Livy & De Sélincourt 2002, p. 34
68. ↑ Bindloss, Joe; Sarina Singh (2007). India: Lonely planet Guide. Lonely Planet. p. 556. ISBN 978-1-74104-308-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=T7ZHUhSEleYC&q=Vaishali&pg=PA556.
69. ↑ Hoiberg, Dale; Indu Ramchandani (2000). Students' Britannica India, Volumes 1-5. Popular Prakashan. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-85229-760-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=DPP7O3nb3g0C&q=Vaishali&pg=PA208.
70. ↑ Kulke, Hermann; Dietmar Rothermund (2004). A history of India. Routledge. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-415-32919-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=TPVq3ykHyH4C&q=Vaishali&pg=PA57.
71. ↑ Mann & Fields 1997.
72. ↑ Lightfoot, Sheryl R. (2021). "Decolonizing Self-Determination: Haudenosaunee Passports and Negotiated Sovereignty". European Journal of International Relations 27 (4): 978. doi:10.1177/13540661211024713. ISSN 1354-0661.
73. ↑ Communications. "Government". https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/government/.
74. ↑ Dahl, Robert A. (1 October 2008). On Democracy: Second Edition. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-23332-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=d2osDwAAQBAJ&q=althing+democracy&pg=PR7.
75. ↑ Fladmark, J. M.; Heyerdahl, Thor (17 November 2015). Heritage and Identity: Shaping the Nations of the North. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-74224-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=mG7vCgAAQBAJ&q=althing+democracy&pg=PT30.
76. ↑ O'Callaghan, Joseph F. (1989). "The Cortes and Taxation". The Cortes of Castile-León, 1188-1350. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 130–151. doi:10.9783/9781512819571. ISBN 978-1-5128-1957-1.
77. ↑ "The oldest constitution in the world". https://www.jpic-jp.org/en/a/the-oldest-constitution-in-the-world.
78. ↑ "The World Won't Listen: The Mande "Hunters' Oath" and Human Rights in Translation" (in en-US). 27 September 2022. https://humanityjournal.org/issue13-2/the-world-wont-listen-the-mande-hunters-oath-and-human-rights-in-translation/.
79. ↑ "Magna Carta: an introduction". The British Library. http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction. "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."
80. ↑ "Citizen or Subject?". The National Archives. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/making_history_citizen.htm.
81. ↑ Jobson, Adrian (2012). The First English Revolution: Simon de Montfort, Henry III and the Barons' War. Bloomsbury. pp. 173–74. ISBN 978-1-84725-226-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=9gHWamp-TLoC.
82. ↑ "Simon de Montfort: The turning point for democracy that gets overlooked". BBC. 19 January 2015. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30849472none ; "The January Parliament and how it defined Britain". The Telegraph. 20 January 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11355822/The-January-Parliament-and-how-it-defined-Britain.html.
83. ↑ "Origins and growth of Parliament". The National Archives. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/origins.htm.
84. ↑ Abramson, Scott F.; Boix, Carles (2019). "Endogenous Parliaments: The Domestic and International Roots of Long-Term Economic Growth and Executive Constraints in Europe". International Organization 73 (4): 793–837. doi:10.1017/S0020818319000286. ISSN 0020-8183.
85. ↑ Møller, Jørgen (2014). "Why Europe Avoided Hegemony: A Historical Perspective on the Balance of Power". International Studies Quarterly 58 (4): 660–670. doi:10.1111/isqu.12153.
86. ↑ Cox, Gary W. (2017). "Political Institutions, Economic Liberty, and the Great Divergence". The Journal of Economic History 77 (3): 724–755. doi:10.1017/S0022050717000729. ISSN 0022-0507.
87. ↑ Stasavage, David (11 May 2016). "Representation and Consent: Why They Arose in Europe and Not Elsewhere". Annual Review of Political Science 19 (1): 145–162. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-043014-105648. ISSN 1094-2939.
88. ↑ Lukowski, Jerzy; Zawadzki, Hubert (January 2019). A Concise History of Poland (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-33399-3.
89. ↑ "From legal document to public myth: Magna Carta in the 17th century". https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/from-legal-document-to-public-myth-magna-carta-in-the-17th-centurynone ; "Magna Carta: Magna Carta in the 17th Century". https://www.sal.org.uk/events/2015/06/magna-carta-magna-carta-in-the-17th-century/.
90. ↑ "Origins and growth of Parliament". The National Archives. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/origins.htm.
91. ↑ "Rise of Parliament". The National Archives. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/rise_parliament/citizenship2.htm.
92. ↑ "Putney debates". The British Library. https://www.bl.uk/taking-liberties/articles/putney-debates.
93. ↑ 93.0 93.1 "Britain's unwritten constitution". British Library. http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution. "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'."
94. ↑ "Constitutionalism: America & Beyond". Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State. http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html. "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."
95. ↑ North, Douglass C.; Weingast, Barry R. (1989). "Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England". The Journal of Economic History 49 (4): 803–832. doi:10.1017/S0022050700009451. ISSN 1471-6372.
96. ↑ Locke, John (1988). Laslett, Peter. ed. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sec. 87, 123, 209, 222. ISBN 978-0-521-35448-6. https://archive.org/details/twotreatisesofgo00john/page/.
97. ↑ Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government: a Translation into Modern English. Quote: "Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. There is no practical alternative to majority political rule – i.e., to take the consent of the majority as the act of the whole and binding every individual." Google Books.
98. ↑ Curte, Merle (1937). "The Great Mr. Locke: America's Philosopher, 1783–1861". The Huntington Library Bulletin (11): 107–151. ISSN 1935-0708.
99. ↑ Tocqueville, Alexis de (2003). Democracy in America. Barnes & Noble. pp. 11, 18–19. ISBN 978-0-7607-5230-2.
100. ↑ 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
101. ↑ 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
102. ↑ Christopher Fennell (1998), Plymouth Colony Legal Structure
103. ↑ Chavetz, Josh (2007). Democracy's Privileged Few. Legislative Privilege and Democratic Norms in the British and American Constitutions. Yale University Press. p. 274.
104. ↑ "Getting the vote". The National Archives. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm.
105. ↑ "Record of Ignatius Sancho's vote in the general election, October 1774". British Library. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/record-of-ignatius-sanchos-vote-in-the-general-election-october-1774.
106. ↑ Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Sweden". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 188–221.
107. ↑ Gregory, Desmond (1985). The ungovernable rock: a history of the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom and its role in Britain's Mediterranean strategy during the Revolutionary War, 1793–1797. London: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-8386-3225-3.
108. ↑ Donald Ratcliffe, "The right to vote and the rise of democracy, 1787—1828 ". Journal of the Early Republic 33.2 (2013): 219–254.
109. ↑ Dinkin, Robert (1982). Voting in Revolutionary America: A Study of Elections in the Original Thirteen States, 1776–1789. US: Greenwood Publishing. pp. 37–42. ISBN 978-0-313-23091-2. https://archive.org/details/votinginrevoluti00dink/page/37.
110. ↑ Ratcliffe, Donald (Summer 2013). "The Right to Vote and the Rise of Democracy, 1787–1828". Journal of the Early Republic 33 (2): 231. doi:10.1353/jer.2013.0033. https://jer.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf.
111. ↑ Ratcliffe, Donald (Summer 2013). "The Right to Vote and the Rise of Democracy, 1787–1828". Journal of the Early Republic 33 (2): 225–229. doi:10.1353/jer.2013.0033. https://jer.pennpress.org/media/26167/sampleArt22.pdf.
112. ↑ "Expansion of Rights and Liberties – The Right of Suffrage". National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html.
113. ↑ Schultz, Jeffrey D. (2002). Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: African Americans and Asian Americans. Oryx Press. p. 284. ISBN 978-1-57356-148-8. https://books.google.com/books?id=WDV40aK1T-sC&pg=PA284. Retrieved 8 October 2015.
114. ↑ "The Bill of Rights: A Brief History". ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/bill-rights-brief-history.
115. ↑ "The French Revolution II". Mars.wnec.edu. http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev892.html.
116. ↑ Norman Davies (15 May 1991). The Third of May 1791.. Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University.. https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/uploads/files/Working-Papers-Archives/CEE_24.pdf. Retrieved 5 September 2019.
117. ↑ Jan Ligeza (2017) (in pl). Preambuła Prawa. Polish Scientific Publishers PWN. p. 12. ISBN 978-83-945455-0-5.
118. ↑ William G. Shade, "The Second Party System". in Paul Kleppner, et al. Evolution of American Electoral Systems (1983) pp 77–111
119. ↑ Engerman, Stanley L.; Sokoloff, Kenneth L. (2005). "The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World". pp. 14–16. http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sokoloff-050406.pdf.
120. ↑ Scher, Richard K. (2015). The Politics of Disenfranchisement: Why is it So Hard to Vote in America?. Routledge. p. viii–ix. ISBN 978-1-317-45536-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=POzqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR9.
121. ↑ "Civil Rights in America: Racial Voting Rights". A National Historic Landmarks Theme Study. 2009. https://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf.
122. ↑ "Introduction – Social Aspects of the Civil War". Itd.nps.gov. http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm.
123. ↑ Gillette, William (1986). "Fifteenth Amendment: Framing and ratification". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000965.html. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
124. ↑ "Black voting rights, 15th Amendment still challenged after 150 years". USA Today. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/02/03/black-voting-rights-15th-amendment-still-challenged-after-150-years/4587160002/.
125. ↑ Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965) US National Archives.
126. ↑ The Constitution: The 24th Amendment Time.
127. ↑ French National Assembly. "1848 " Désormais le bulletin de vote doit remplacer le fusil "". http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/suffrage_universel/suffrage-1848.asp.
128. ↑ "Movement toward greater democracy in Europe ". Indiana University Northwest.
129. ↑ Hasan Kayalı (1995) 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
130. ↑ Reconstructing Gender in Middle East: Tradition, Identity, and Power. Columbia University Press. 1995. p. 101.
131. ↑ Nohlen, Dieter (2001). Elections in Asia and the Pacific: South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific. Oxford University Press. p. 14.
132. ↑ 132.0 132.1 Kurlantzick, Joshua (11 May 2017). "Mini-Trumps Are Running for Election All Over the World". Bloomberg News. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-11/mini-trumps-are-running-for-election-all-over-the-world.
133. ↑ Mounk, Yascha (January 2017). "The Signs of Deconsolidation". Journal of Democracy. http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/authoreditor/yascha-mounk. Retrieved 16 May 2017.
134. ↑ "Age of Dictators: Totalitarianism in the inter-war period". http://www.snl.depaul.edu/contents/current/syllabi/HC_314.doc.
135. ↑ "Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute". The Independent Institute. Independent.org. http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=599.
136. ↑ "World | South Asia | Country profiles | Country profile: India". BBC News. 7 June 2010. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12557384.
137. ↑ Julian Go (2007). "A Globalizing Constitutionalism?, Views from the Postcolony, 1945–2000". in Arjomand, Saïd Amir. Constitutionalism and political reconstruction. Brill. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-90-04-15174-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=kYmmnYKEvE0C&pg=PA94.
138. ↑ "How the Westminster Parliamentary System was exported around the World". University of Cambridge. 2 December 2013. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/how-the-westminster-parliamentary-system-was-exported-around-the-world.
139. ↑ Thuynsma, Heather A. (2012) (in en). Public Opinion and Interest Group Politics: South Africa's Missing Links?. African Books Collective. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-7983-0292-0. https://books.google.com/books?id=b-eaSTWcVyIC&dq=nelson+mandela+1994+election+first+time&pg=PA125.
140. ↑ Nelsson, Richard; Nelsson, compiled by Richard (26 April 2024). "The day apartheid died: South Africa's first free elections – archive, 1994". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/26/the-day-apartheid-died-south-africa-elections-april-1994.
141. ↑ "Age of democracies at the end of 2015". https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/age-of-democracies.
142. ↑ "Tables and Charts". Freedomhouse.org. 10 May 2004. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=368&year=2007.
143. ↑ "List of Electoral Democracies". http://www.fordemocracy.net/electoral.shtml.
144. ↑ "General Assembly declares 15 September International Day of Democracy; Also elects 18 Members to Economic and Social Council". United Nations. https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10655.doc.htm.
145. ↑ Bingham, Adrian (25 June 2019). "'The last milestone' on the journey to full adult suffrage? 50 years of debates about the voting age". https://www.historyandpolicy.org/index.php/policy-papers/papers/the-last-milestone-on-the-journey-to-full-adult-suffrage.
146. ↑ "Archives of Maryland, Volume 0138, Page 0051 – Constitutional Revision Study Documents of the Constitutional Convention Commission, 1968". https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000138/html/am138--51.html.
147. ↑ Sanders, Mark (2000). Your Right To Vote. United States: Raintree Steck- Vaugh company.
148. ↑ Wall, John (October 2014). "Democratising democracy: the road from women's to children's suffrage". The International Journal of Human Rights 18 (6): 646–59. doi:10.1080/13642987.2014.944807. https://johnwall.camden.rutgers.edu/files/2014/10/Democratising-Democracy-The-Road-from-Womens-to-Childrens-Suffrage1.pdf.
149. ↑ 149.0 149.1 "Freedom in the Word 2017". 2016. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017.
150. ↑ "Biden Says Democracy Is Winning. It's Not That Simple.". Bloomberg. 16 July 2023. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-16/is-biden-right-that-us-democracy-is-beating-china-and-russia.
151. ↑ "Freedom House: Democracy Scores for Most Countries Decline for 12th Consecutive Year", VOA News, 16 January 2018. Retrieved 21 January 2018.
152. ↑ "As populism rises, fragile democracies move to weaken their courts". The Christian Science Monitor. 13 November 2018. ISSN 0882-7729. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2018/1113/As-populism-rises-fragile-democracies-move-to-weaken-their-courts.
153. ↑ 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
154. ↑ Press, Associated (31 January 2026). "Burkina Faso's junta dissolves all political parties, saying they cause divisions" (in en-US). https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-01-31/burkina-fasos-junta-dissolves-all-political-parties-saying-they-cause-divisions.
155. ↑ Greskovitz, Béla (2015). "The Hollowing and Backsliding of Democracy in East-Central Europe". Global Policy 6 (1): 28–37. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12225.
156. ↑ Rhodes-Purdy, Matthew; Madrid, Raúl L. (27 November 2019). "The perils of personalism". Democratization 27 (2): 321–339. doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1696310. ISSN 1351-0347.
157. ↑ "Global overview of COVID-19: Impact on elections". https://www.idea.int/news-media/multimedia-reports/global-overview-covid-19-impact-elections.
158. ↑ Repucci, Sarah; Slipowitz, Amy. "Democracy under Lockdown". Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown.
159. ↑ ﻿Democracy Facing Global Challenges: V-Dem Annual Democracy Report 2019﻿ (Report). V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg. May 2019. https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/99/de/99dedd73-f8bc-484c-8b91-44ba601b6e6b/v-dem_democracy_report_2019.pdf. Retrieved 26 April 2021.
160. ↑ Mettler, Suzanne (2020). Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-250-24442-0. OCLC 1155487679.
161. ↑ Farrell, Henry (14 August 2020). "History tells us there are four key threats to U.S. democracy". The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/14/history-tells-us-there-are-four-key-threats-us-democracy/.
162. ↑ Lieberman, Suzanne Mettler and Robert C. (10 August 2020). "The Fragile Republic". https://reader.foreignaffairs.com/2020/08/10/the-fragile-republic/content.html.
163. ↑ Haggard, Stephan; Kaufman, Robert (2021). Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108957809. ISBN 978-1-108-95780-9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/backsliding/CCD2F28FB63A56409FF8911351F2E937. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
164. ↑ Malka, Ariel; Lelkes, Yphtach; Bakker, Bert N.; Spivack, Eliyahu (2020). "Who Is Open to Authoritarian Governance within Western Democracies?". Perspectives on Politics 20 (3): 808–827. doi:10.1017/S1537592720002091. ISSN 1537-5927. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/who-is-open-to-authoritarian-governance-within-western-democracies/0ADCD5FFE5B7E9267E8283C7561FB6BE.
165. ↑ "Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, Chapter 10 (1160a.31-1161a.9)". Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.8.viii.html.
166. ↑ "Aristotle". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aristotl.htm.
167. ↑ 167.0 167.1 167.2 167.3 167.4 Deudney, Daniel H. (9 November 2008). Deudney, D.: Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. (eBook and Paperback). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13830-5. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8304.html. Retrieved 14 March 2017.
168. ↑ 168.0 168.1 Schumpeter, Joseph (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1st ed.). Harper and Brothers. p. 252. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.190072.
169. ↑ Anthony Downs, (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. HarperCollins College. ISBN 978-0-06-041750-5.
170. ↑ Leemann, Lucas; Wasserfallen, Fabio (2016). "The Democratic Effect of Direct Democracy". American Political Science Review 110 (4): 750–762. doi:10.1017/S0003055416000307. ISSN 0003-0554. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055416000307/type/journal_article. Retrieved 9 February 2026.
171. ↑ Golder, Matt; Stramski, Jacek (2010). "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions". American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 90–106. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00420.x. ISSN 0092-5853. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00420.x. Retrieved 9 February 2026.
172. ↑ McDONALD, Michael D.; Mendes, Silvia M.; Budge, Ian (2004). "What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate". British Journal of Political Science 34 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1017/S0007123403000322. ISSN 0007-1234. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123403000322/type/journal_article. Retrieved 9 May 2026.
173. ↑ Bingham Powell Jr, G.; Vanberg, Georg S. (2000). "Election Laws, Disproportionality and Median Correspondence: Implications for Two Visions of Democracy". British Journal of Political Science 30 (3): 383–411. doi:10.1017/S0007123400000168. ISSN 0007-1234. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123400000168/type/journal_article. Retrieved 9 May 2026.
174. ↑ Dahl, Robert, (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-04938-1
175. ↑ Dworkin, Ronald (2006). Is Democracy Possible Here? Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13872-5, p. 134.
176. ↑ Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2002). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12019-5
177. ↑ 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.
178. ↑ Ethan J. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?", Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 54, 2006
179. ↑ Warren, Mark E.; Pearse, Hilary (2008). Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly. Cambridge University Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/WARDDD-2.
180. ↑ Suiter, Jane; Farrell, David M; O'Malley, Eoin (1 March 2016). "When do deliberative citizens change their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens' Assembly". International Political Science Review 37 (2): 198–212. doi:10.1177/0192512114544068. ISSN 0192-5121.
181. ↑ Smith, Graham (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Theories of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-51477-4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4.
182. ↑ "Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave | en | OECD". 9 June 2020. https://www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions-339306da-en.htm.
183. ↑ G.F. Gaus, C. Kukathas, Handbook of Political Theory, SAGE, 2004, pp. 143–45, ISBN 978-0-7619-6787-3, Google Books link
184. ↑ The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 26, ISBN 978-0-691-12017-1, Google Books link
185. ↑ A. Barak, The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2006, p. 40, ISBN 978-0-691-12017-1, Google Books link
186. ↑ T.R. Williamson, Problems in American Democracy, Kessinger Publishing, 2004, p. 36, ISBN 978-1-4191-4316-8, Google Books link
187. ↑ U.K. Preuss, "Perspectives of Democracy and the Rule of Law". Journal of Law and Society, 18:3 (1991). pp. 353–64
188. ↑ Budge, Ian (2001). "Direct democracy". in Clarke, Paul A.B.. Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-19396-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=srzDCqnZkfUC&pg=PA224.
189. ↑ 189.0 189.1 Friend, Celeste (n.d.). "Social Contract Theory". https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/.
190. ↑ Beramendi, Virginia, and Jennifer Somalie. Angeyo. Direct Democracy: The International Idea Handbook. Stockholm, Sweden: International IDEA, 2008. Print.
191. ↑ 191.0 191.1 191.2 191.3 191.4 Vincent Golay and Mix et Remix, Swiss political institutions, Éditions loisirs et pédagogie, 2008. ISBN 978-2-606-01295-3.
192. ↑ Niels Barmeyer, Developing Zapatista Autonomy, Chapter Three: Who is Running the Show? The Workings of Zapatista Government.
193. ↑ Denham, Diana (2008). Teaching Rebellion: Stories from the Grassroots Mobilization in Oaxaca.
194. ↑ Zibechi, Raul (2013). Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces in Latin America.
195. ↑ "A Very Different Ideology in the Middle East". Rudaw. 29 January 2015. http://rudaw.net/english/opinion/29012015.
196. ↑ Serdült, Uwe (2014), "Referendums in Switzerland", in Qvortrup, Matt, Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 65–121, doi:10.1057/9781137314703_4, ISBN 978-1-137-31470-3
197. ↑ "Article on direct democracy by Imraan Buccus". Themercury.co.za. http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3985561.
198. ↑ "A Citizen's Guide To Vermont Town Meeting". July 2008. http://www.sec.state.vt.us/townmeeting/citizens_guide.html.
199. ↑ Manin, Bernard (1997). Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge University Press. pp. 8–11. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511659935. ISBN 978-0-521-45891-7. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/96019710.html.
200. ↑ "Radical Revolution – The Thermidorean Reaction". Wsu.edu. 6 June 1999. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REV/RADICAL.HTM.
201. ↑ Köchler, Hans (1987). The Crisis of Representative Democracy. Frankfurt/M., Bern, New York. ISBN 978-3-8204-8843-2.
202. ↑ Urbinati, Nadia (1 October 2008). "2". Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-84279-0.
203. ↑ Fenichel Pitkin, Hanna (September 2004). "Representation and democracy: uneasy alliance". Scandinavian Political Studies 27 (3): 335–42. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2004.00109.x.
204. ↑ Aristotle. "Ch. 9". Politics. Book 4.
205. ↑ Keen, Benjamin, A History of Latin America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980.
206. ↑ Kuykendall, Ralph, Hawaii: A History. New York: Prentice Hall, 1948.
207. ↑ Brown, Charles H., The Correspondents' War. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967.
208. ↑ Taussig, Capt. J. K., "Experiences during the Boxer Rebellion," in Quarterdeck and Fo'c'sle. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963
209. ↑ 209.0 209.1 209.2 209.3 O'Neil, Patrick H. Essentials of Comparative Politics. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton 2010. Print
210. ↑ "64. The British Empire in 1914. Wells, H.G. 1922. A Short History of the World". https://www.bartleby.com/86/64.html.
211. ↑ "Republic – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary". M-W.com. 25 April 2007. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/republic.
212. ↑ "The Federalist Papers: No. 10". Avalon Project. 29 December 1998. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp.
213. ↑ "Madison Debates, June 6". Avalon Project. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_606.asp.
214. ↑ Richard J. Ellis and Michael Nelson, Debating the presidency (2009) p. 211
215. ↑ Novanglus, no. 7. 6 March 1775
216. ↑ Brockell, Gillian (19 December 2019). "'A republic, if you can keep it': Did Ben Franklin really say Impeachment Day's favorite quote?". The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/12/18/republic-if-you-can-keep-it-did-ben-franklin-really-say-impeachment-days-favorite-quote/.
217. ↑ "The Founders' Constitution: Volume 1, Chapter 18, Introduction, "Epilogue: Securing the Republic"". Press-pubs.uchicago.edu. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18I.html.
218. ↑ He, Jiacheng (8 January 2022). "The Patterns of Democracy in Context of Historical Political Science". Chinese Political Science Review (Springer Science and Business Media LLC) 7 (1): 111–139. doi:10.1007/s41111-021-00201-5. ISSN 2365-4244.
219. ↑ Barry Stewart Clark (1998). Political economy: a comparative approach. ABC-CLIO. pp. 57–59. ISBN 978-0-275-96370-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=3bJHvA1H-2kC&pg=PA57. Retrieved 7 March 2011.
220. ↑ Kazuko, Kawamoto (2014). "Rethinking Soviet Democracy". Japanese Political Science Review 2 (2): 111–133. doi:10.15545/2.111.
221. ↑ Swearer, Howard R. (1961). "The Functions of Soviet Local Elections". Midwest Journal of Political Science 5 (2): 129–149. doi:10.2307/2109266. ISSN 0026-3397. http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/POSO/article/view/54803.
222. ↑ Wiles, Peter (14 June 2023). The Soviet Economy on the Brink of Reform: Essays in Honor of Alec Nove. Taylor & Francis. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-000-88190-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=mHAIEQAAQBAJ&dq=trotsky+legalization+of+soviet+parties+worker+control+of+production&pg=PA31.
223. ↑ Mandel, Ernest (5 May 2020). Trotsky as Alternative. Verso Books. pp. 84–86. ISBN 978-1-78960-701-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=xVmcEAAAQBAJ&dq=trotsky+as+alternative+mandel&pg=PT80.
224. ↑ Trotsky, Leon (1977). The Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution: Including The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International. Pathfinder Press. pp. 145–146. ISBN 978-0-87348-524-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=rL8gAQAAIAAJ&q=the+transitional+program+trotsky.
225. ↑ Lenin, V. I. (1965). "Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action". Lenin's Collected Works. 10. Moscow: Progress Publishers. pp. 442–443. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
226. ↑ Tsang, Steve; Cheung, Olivia (2024). The Political Thought of Xi Jinping. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780197689363.
227. ↑ CPC Futures The New Era of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. 2022. pp. 60–64. doi:10.56159/eai.52060. ISBN 978-981-18-5206-0. OCLC 1354535847.
228. ↑ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. General Idea of the Revolution See also commentary by Graham, Robert. The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution
229. ↑ 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
230. ↑ Bookchin, Murray. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm
231. ↑ Graeber, David and Grubacic, Andrej. Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement of the Twenty-first Century
232. ↑ Dowlen, Oliver (2008). The Political Potential of Sortition: A study of the random selection of citizens for public office. Imprint Academic.
233. ↑ Arend, Lijphart (January 1969). "Consociational Democracy". World Politics 21 (2): 207–225. doi:10.2307/2009820. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/abs/consociational-democracy/BB47BF2A5A4EBAE341FD3FA4E262410F.
234. ↑ McGann, Anthony J.; Latner, Michael (16 July 2013). "The Calculus of Consensus Democracy: Rethinking Patterns of Democracy Without Veto Players". Comparative Political Studies 46 (7): 823–850. doi:10.1177/0010414012463883. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414012463883.
235. ↑ Kasuya, Yuko; Reilly, Benjamin (4 July 2023). "The shift to consensus democracy and limits of institutional design in Asia". The Pacific Review 36 (4): 844–870. doi:10.1080/09512748.2022.2035426. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09512748.2022.2035426.
236. ↑ "shclj8". https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/shclj8&i=371.
237. ↑ Jorge Camil, review of Hacia Una Democracia Inclusiva (in Spanish), La Jornada, Friday, 8 June 2001.
238. ↑ Arran Gare, review of Towards an Inclusive Democracy, Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 34 (1), Winter 2002, p. 97–99.
239. ↑ Michael Levin, review of Towards an Inclusive Democracy, Anarchist Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, October 1997.
240. ↑ John Griffin, Dodgy Logic and the Olympians, Total Liberty, 1999-2000, p. 10–11.
241. ↑ James Herod, review of Towards an Inclusive Democracy, Getting Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods, Lucy Parsons Center (first printing edition), May 2007.
242. ↑ Baer, Hans (19 November 2020). "Towards an anti-capitalist synthesis: what can ecosocialists learn from ecoanarchists?". Green Left. https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/towards-anti-capitalist-synthesis-what-can-ecosocialists-learn-ecoanarchists.
243. ↑ Springer, Simon (2011). "Public Space as Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism, Radical Democracy, Neoliberalism and Violence". Antipode 43 (2): 525–62. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00827.x. Bibcode: 2011Antip..43..525S. https://www.academia.edu/354048.
244. ↑ "Article on Cosmopolitan democracy by Daniele Archibugi". http://www.danielearchibugi.org/downloads/papers/CD_and_critics_A_review.pdf.
245. ↑ "letter by Einstein – "To the General Assembly of the United Nations"". http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html. , first published in United Nations World New York, October 1947, pp. 13–14
246. ↑ 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, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008
247. ↑ "Creative Democracy – The Task Before Us". http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/dewey/dewey_creative_democracy.pdf.
248. ↑ Brown, Archie (2001). "From Democratization to "Guided Democracy&quot". Journal of Democracy 12 (4): 35–41. doi:10.1353/jod.2001.0063. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/17149/pdf.
249. ↑ Putin's Rule: Its Main Features and the Current Diarchy Johnson's Russia List. By Peter Reddaway. 18 February 2009. Downloaded 28 April 2017.
250. ↑ 250.0 250.1 250.2 Alexander Cooley, Barnard College, Columbia University, Jack Snyder, Columbia University, New York (Editors), Alexander Cooley, Rawi Abdelal, Mark Blyth, Mlada Bukovansky, Nehal Bhuta, Seva Gunitsky, Sam Schueth, Jack Snyder: Ranking the World – Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, Cambridge University Press, October 2016, ISBN 9781107484122 (Paperback) / April 2015, ISBN 9781107098138 (Hardback)

Seva Gunitsky: Lost in the Gray Zone: Competing Measures of Democracy in the Former Soviet Republics. In Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, edited by Alexander Cooley and Jack Snyder, p.112-150. Cambridge University Press, 2015, PDF on Seva Gunitsky's web at the Toronto University: http://individual.utoronto.ca/seva/dem_measures.pdf
251. ↑ 251.0 251.1 251.2 Michael Coppedge and John Gerring, with David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, Allen Hicken, Matthew Kroenig, Staffan I. Lindberg, Kelly McMann, Pamela Paxton, Holli A. Semetko, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton and Jan Teorell: Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach, pp. 247–267, Perspectives on Politics 9 (2), American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press 2011, doi:10.1017/S1537592711000880, ISSN 1537-5927, JSTOR 41479651, S2CID 11629045
252. ↑ Seva Gunitsky: How do you measure 'democracy'?, Washington Post, 23 June 2015
253. ↑ direct and/or indirect participation? see e.g. participation.direct, participation.direct/words-theory, participation.direct/in-politics
254. ↑ throughout the whole society / all the people in all things in common? see e.g. participation.direct, participation.direct/in-politics, participation.direct/participation-for-all
255. ↑ "Democracy Report 2026, Unraveling The Democratic Era?". https://v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf.
256. ↑ Schmitter, Philippe C; Karl, Terry Lynn (1991). "What Democracy Is. . . and Is Not". Journal of Democracy 2 (3): 75–88. doi:10.1353/jod.1991.0033. ISSN 1086-3214.
257. ↑ Compare: Tibi, Bassam (2013). The Sharia State: Arab Spring and Democratization. Routledge. p. 161. ISBN 978-1-135-92468-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=uXAdAAAAQBAJ.
258. ↑ Gerring, John; Knutsen, Carl Henrik; Berge, Jonas (2022). "Does Democracy Matter?". Annual Review of Political Science 25: 357–375. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-060820-060910.
259. ↑ Silver, Laura; Evans, Jonathan; Smerkovich, Maria; Gubbala, Sneha; Corichi, Manolo; Miner, William (2025). "4. Should religious texts influence national laws?". https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/01/28/should-religious-texts-influence-national-laws/.
260. ↑ Dixon, William J. (1993). "Democracy and the Management of International Conflict". Journal of Conflict Resolution 37: 42–68. doi:10.1177/0022002793037001002.
261. ↑ Daron Acemoglu; Suresh Naidu; Pascual Restrepo; James A. Robinson (February 2019). "Democracy Does Cause Growth". Journal of Political Economy 127 (1): 47–100. doi:10.1086/700936. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20004.pdf.
262. ↑ Peter Dizikes (24 April 2019). "Democracy dividend". Technology Review MIT News: p. 03. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/24/135720/democracy-dividend/.
263. ↑ Pelke, Lars (2023). "Reanalysing the link between democracy and economic development". International Area Studies Review 26 (4): 361–383. doi:10.1177/22338659231194945.
264. ↑ Soral, Wiktor; Bukowski, Marcin; Bilewicz, Michał; Cichocka, Aleksandra; Lewczuk, Karol; Marchlewska, Marta; Rabinovitch, Aleksandra; Rędzio, Anna et al. (2024). "Prolonged unemployment is associated with control loss and personal as well as social disengagement". Journal of Personality 92 (6): 1704–1725. doi:10.1111/jopy.12967. ISSN 0022-3506. PMID 39092487. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12967. Retrieved 6 February 2026.
265. ↑ Arugay, Aries A. (2021). "Democratic Transitions". The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–7. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_190-1. ISBN 978-3-319-74336-3.
266. ↑ Munck, G.L. (2001). "Democratic Transitions". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. pp. 3425–3428. doi:10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/01135-9. ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8.
267. ↑ For example: Lipset, Seymour Martin. (1959). "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy". American Political Science Review 53 (1): 69–105. doi:10.2307/1951731.
268. ↑ Inglehart, Ronald. Welzel, Christian Modernisation, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
269. ↑ Inglehart, Ronald F. (2018). Cultural Evolution: People's Motivations Are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108613880. ISBN 978-1-108-61388-0.
270. ↑ Gibler, Douglas M.; Owsiak, Andrew (2017). "Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders, 1919–2001". Journal of Conflict Resolution 62 (9): 1847–75. doi:10.1177/0022002717708599.
271. ↑ Foreword, written by historian Harry J Hogan in 1982, to Quigley's Weapons Systems and Political Stability
272. ↑ see also Chester G Starr, Review of Weapons Systems and Political Stability, American Historical Review, Feb 1984, p. 98, available at carrollquigley.net
273. ↑ 273.0 273.1 Carroll Quigley (1983). Weapons systems and political stability: a history. University Press of America. pp. 38–39. ISBN 978-0-8191-2947-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=L6e2AAAAIAAJ. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
274. ↑ Carroll Quigley (1983). Weapons systems and political stability: a history. University Press of America. p. 307. ISBN 978-0-8191-2947-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=L6e2AAAAIAAJ. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
275. ↑ Glaeser, E.; Ponzetto, G.; Shleifer, A. (2007). "Why does democracy need education?". Journal of Economic Growth 12 (2): 77–99. doi:10.1007/s10887-007-9015-1. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27867132. Retrieved 3 July 2017.
276. ↑ Deary, I.J.; Batty, G.D.; Gale, C.R. (2008). "Bright children become enlightened adults". Psychological Science 19 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02036.x. PMID 18181782. https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/8896064/bright_children_become_enlightened_adults.pdf.
277. ↑ Compare: Rindermann, H (2008). "Relevance of education and intelligence for the political development of nations: Democracy, rule of law and political liberty". Intelligence 36 (4): 306–22. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.09.003. "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.".
278. ↑ Albertus, Michael; Menaldo, Victor (2012). "Coercive Capacity and the Prospects for Democratisation". Comparative Politics 44 (2): 151–69. doi:10.5129/001041512798838003. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1694364_code1402071.pdf?abstractid=1618909&mirid=1.
279. ↑ 279.0 279.1 Paglayan, Agustina S. (February 2021). "The Non-Democratic Roots of Mass Education: Evidence from 200 Years". American Political Science Review 115 (1): 179–198. doi:10.1017/S0003055420000647. ISSN 0003-0554.
280. ↑ 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
281. ↑ Acemoglu, Daron; Robinson, James A. (2006). Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85526-6.
282. ↑ "Rainfall and Democracy". http://www.plawlotic.com/?p=102.
283. ↑ Alsan, Marcella (2015). "The Effect of the TseTse Fly on African Development". American Economic Review 105 (1): 382–410. doi:10.1257/aer.20130604. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~neudc2012/docs/paper_285.pdf.
284. ↑ Acemoglu, Daron; Johnson, Simon; Robinson, James (2005). "Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth". Handbook of Economic Growth. 1. pp. 385–472, Sections 1 to 4. doi:10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3. ISBN 978-0-444-52041-8.
285. ↑ Mellinger, Andrew D., Jeffrey Sachs, and John L. Gallup. (1999). "Climate, Water Navigability, and Economic Development". Working Paper.
286. ↑ Acemoglu, Daron; Johnson, Simon; Robinson, James (2005). "Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth". Handbook of Economic Growth. 1. pp. 385–472, Sections 5 to 10. doi:10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3. ISBN 978-0-444-52041-8.
287. ↑ Robert Michels (1999). Political Parties. Transaction Publishers. p. 243. ISBN 978-1-4128-3116-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=ijae_UIez38C. Retrieved 5 June 2013.
288. ↑ 288.0 288.1 "Democracy Report 2026 / Unraveling The Democratic Era?". V-Dem Institute. March 2026. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf.
289. ↑ Germann, Micha; Gemenis, Kostas (2019). "Getting Out the Vote with Voting Advice Applications". Political Communication 36: 149–170. doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1526237.
290. ↑ "Book Review: Against Elections: The Case for Democracy by David Van Reybrouck". 20 October 2016. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/10/20/book-review-against-elections-the-case-for-democracy-by-david-van-reybrouck/.
291. ↑ Wong, Alia (5 October 2018). "Civics Education Helps Create Young Voters and Activists". https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/civics-education-helps-form-young-voters-and-activists/572299/.
292. ↑ Tullock, Gordon (1965). "Entry Barriers in Politics". The American Economic Review 55 (1/2): 458–466. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1816288.
293. ↑ Karp, Jeffrey A.; Banducci, Susan A. (2008). "Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour". British Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 311–334. doi:10.1017/S0007123408000161.
294. ↑ The ideational approach to populism: concept, theory, and analysis. p. 281. ISBN 978-1-315-19692-3. OCLC 1053623603.
295. ↑ Ezrow, Lawrence; Xezonakis, Georgios (2011). "Citizen Satisfaction With Democracy and Parties' Policy Offerings". Comparative Political Studies 44 (9): 1152–1178. doi:10.1177/0010414011405461. ISSN 0010-4140. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414011405461. Retrieved 18 March 2026.
296. ↑ "Country Graph". V-Dem Institute. March 2026. https://www.v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/. (Choose "World" and under "VDem Indices" select "Election Democracy Index" and "Liberal Democracy Index". Click on the three horizontal lines in the upper right, and in the resulting drop-down menu choose "Download Graph Data as CSV")
297. ↑ "'Electoral autocracy': The downgrading of India's democracy". BBC News. 15 March 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944.
298. ↑ David Remnick: The Authors of "How Democracies Die" on the New Democratic Minority - Two leading political scientists explain why voters failed to defend democracy: We never do., Podcast The New Yorker Radio Hour, 15. November 2024.
Ursula Sommer discusses David Remnicks podcast with Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in: The Authors of "How Democracies Die" on the New Democratic Minority, 15 November 2024.
299. ↑ "Veteran Belarus leader Lukashenko signals this may be his final term". Reuters. 8 August 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/veteran-belarus-leader-lukashenko-signals-this-may-be-his-final-term-2025-08-08/.
300. ↑ Nord, Marina; Angiolillo, Fabio; Good God, Ana; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2025). "State of the world 2024: 25 years of autocratization – democracy trumped?". Democratization 32 (4): 839–864. doi:10.1080/13510347.2025.2487825. ISSN 1351-0347. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2025.2487825. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
301. ↑ Wilson, Ben; Dyson, Tim (2017). "Democracy and the demographic transition". Democratization 24 (4): 594–612. doi:10.1080/13510347.2016.1194396. ISSN 1351-0347. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2016.1194396. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
302. ↑ 302.0 302.1 Alan Siaroff (2009). Comparing Political Regimes: A Thematic Introduction to Comparative Politics. University of Toronto Press. p. 285. ISBN 978-1-4426-0012-6.
303. ↑ Edwin Leland James (7 January 1929). "King of Yugoslavia Assumes All Power". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1929/01/07/archives/king-of-yugoslavia-assumes-all-power-in-midnight-coup-alexander.html.
304. ↑ Pinfield, Nick (2015). A/AS Level History for AQA Democracy and Nazism: Germany, 1918–1945 Student Book. Cambridge University Press. p. 98.
305. ↑ MacChesney, Robert W (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. University of Illinois Press.
306. ↑ Barnett, Steven (2002). "Will a crisis in journalism provoke a crisis in democracy?". The Political Quarterly 73 (4): 400–408. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.00494.
307. ↑ Gurevitch, Michael; Blumler, Jay G. (1990). "Political Communication Systems and Democratic Values". in Lichtenberg, Judith. Democracy and the mass media: A collection of essays. Cambridge University Press. pp. 269–289.
308. ↑ 308.0 308.1 Bucy, Erik P.; D'Angelo, Paul (1999). "The Crisis of Political Communication: Normative Critiques of News and Democratic Processes". Communication Yearbook 22: 301–339.
309. ↑ 309.0 309.1 309.2 Blumler, Jay G. (2014). "Mediatization and Democracy". in Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper. Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 31–41.
310. ↑ Donges, Patrick; Jarren, Otfried (2014). "Mediatization of Organizations: Changing Parties and Interest Groups?". in Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper. Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 31–41.
311. ↑ Esser, Frank (2013). "Mediatization as a Challenge: Media Logic versus Political Logic". in Kriesi, Hanspeter; Esser, Frank; Bühlmann, Marc. Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 155–176.
312. ↑ Cappella, Joseph N.; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford University Press.
313. ↑ 313.0 313.1 Vreese, Claes H. de (2014). "Mediatization of News: The Role of Journalistic Framing". in Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper. Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 137–155.
314. ↑ 314.0 314.1 Esser, Frank; Matthes, Jörg (2013). "Mediatization Effects on Political News, Political Actors, Political Decisions, and Political Audiences". in Kriesi, Hanspeter; Esser, Frank; Bühlmann, Marc. Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 177–201.
315. ↑ Baum, Matthew A. (2003). Soft news goes to war. Public opinion and american foreign policy in the new media era. Princeton University Press.
316. ↑ Altheide, David L. (2002). Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis. Aldine de Gruyter. ISBN 978-1-138-52143-8.
317. ↑ 317.0 317.1 Altheide, David L. (2014). Media edge: Media logic and social reality. Peter Lang.
318. ↑ Esaiasson, Peter; Wlezien, Christopher (2017). "Advances in the Study of Democratic Responsiveness: An Introduction". Comparative Political Studies 50 (6): 699–710. doi:10.1177/0010414016633226.
319. ↑ Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis (2016). "The Business of News". in Witschge, Tamara; Anderson, Christopher William; Domingo, David et al.. The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism. Sage. pp. 51–67.
320. ↑ Cinelli, Matteo; Morales, Gianmarco De Francisci; Galeazzi, Alessandro; Quattrociocchi, Walter; Starnini, Michele (2021). "The echo chamber effect on social media". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 18 (9). doi:10.1073/pnas.2023301118. PMID 33622786. Bibcode: 2021PNAS..11823301C.
321. ↑ 321.0 321.1 McCoy, Jennifer; Somer, Murat (2019). "Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681 (1): 234–271. doi:10.1177/0002716218818782.
322. ↑ Cushion, Stephen (2012). The Democratic Value of News: Why Public Service Media Matter. Macmillan.
323. ↑ Cushion, Stephen; Franklin, Bob (2015). "Public Service Broadcasting: Markets and Vulnerable Values in Broadcast and Print Journalism". in Coleman, Stephen; Moss, Giles; Parry, Katy et al.. Can the Media Serve Democracy?: Essays in Honour of Jay G. Blumler. Springer. pp. 65–75.
324. ↑ Buckley, Steve; Duer, Kreszentia; Mendel, Toby; Siochrú, Seán Ó (2008). Broadcasting, voice, and accountability: A public interest approach to policy, law, and regulation. World Bank and University of Michigan Press.
325. ↑ 325.0 325.1 Gunther, Richard; Mugham, Anthony (2000). "The Political Impact of the Media: A Reassessment". in Gunther, Richard; Mugham, Anthony. Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. pp. 402–448.
326. ↑ Pickard, Victor (2020). "The Public Media Option: Confronting Policy Failure in an Age of Misinformation". in Bennett, W. Lance; Livingston, Steven. The Disinformation Age: Politics, Technology, and Disruptive Communication in the United States. Cambridge University Press. pp. 238–258.
327. ↑ Udris, Linards; Lucht, Jens (2014). "Mediatization at the Structural Level: Independence from Politics, Dependence on the Market". in Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper. Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 114–136.
328. ↑ Thoday, Jon (2018). "Public Service Television and the Crisis of Content". in Freedman, Des; Goblot, Vana. A Future for Public Service Television. MIT Press. pp. 29–39.
329. ↑ Schulz, Winfried (2014). "Mediatization and New Media". in Esser, Frank; Strömbäck, Jesper. Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies. Springer. pp. 114–136.
330. ↑ 330.0 330.1 Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina; Petrova, Maria; Enikolopov, Ruben (2020). "Political effects of the internet and social media". Annual Review of Economics 12: 415–438. doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239.
331. ↑ Voltmer, Katrin; Sorensen, Lone (2019). "Media, Power, Citizenship: The Mediatization of Democratic Change". in Voltmer, Katrin. Media, Communication and the Struggle for Democratic Change. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 35–58.
332. ↑ Vosoughi, Soroush; Roy, Deb; Aral, Sinan (2018). "The spread of true and false news online". Science 359 (6380): 1146–1151. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559. PMID 29590045. Bibcode: 2018Sci...359.1146V. http://vermontcomplexsystems.org/share/papershredder/vosoughi2018a.pdf. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
333. ↑ 333.0 333.1 Prooijen, Jan-Willem van; Ligthart, Joline; Rosema, Sabine (2021). "The entertainment value of conspiracy theories". British Journal of Psychology 113 (1): 25–48. doi:10.1111/bjop.12522. PMID 34260744.
334. ↑ Egorov, Georgy; Sonin, Konstantin (2020). The political economics of non-democracy. National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. w27949. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3714441.

### Works cited

* Clarke, P.; Foweraker, J. (2001). Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-19396-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=srzDCqnZkfUC.
* Clark, William Roberts; Golder, Matt; Golder, Sona Nadenichek (2017). Principles of Comparative Politics (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Sage/CQ Press. ISBN 978-1-5063-8979-0.
* Graeber, David (2013). The Democracy Project: a history, a crisis, a movement. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-8129-9356-1. OCLC 769425385.
* Livy; De Sélincourt, A.; Ogilvie, R. M.; Oakley, S. P. (2002). The early history of Rome: books I-V of The history of Rome from its foundations. Penguin Classics. ISBN 978-0-14-044809-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHh7heON3sQC.
* "A Sign in the Sky: Dating the League of the Haudenosaunee". American Indian Culture and Research Journal 21 (2): 105–163. 1997. doi:10.17953/aicr.21.2.k36m1485r3062510. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/27g1b5px.
* Ober, J.; Hedrick, C.W. (1996). Dēmokratia: a conversation on democracies, ancient and modern. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01108-0.
* Raaflaub, Kurt A.; Ober, Josiah; Wallace, Robert W (2007). Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24562-4.

## Further reading

* Cartledge, Paul (2016). Democracy: A Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199697670.
* Biagini, Eugenio (general editor). 2021. A Cultural History of Democracy, 6 Volumes New York : Bloomsbury Academic.
* Przeworski, Adam (2018) Why Bother With Elections? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
* Munck, Gerardo L. (2016) "What is Democracy? A Reconceptualization of the Quality of Democracy". Democratization 23(1): 1–26.
* Votingsystem, Nu (2024). "The Role of Media and Polls in Shaping Public Opinion: A 2024 Analysis". https://votingsystem-nu.vercel.app/The_Role_of_Media_and_Polls_in_Shaping_Public_Opinion_A_2024_Analysis.html. Retrieved 27 November 2025.
* Votingsystem, Nu (2024). "Election Security 101: How Votes Are Counted and Protected". https://votingsystem-nu.vercel.app/Election_Security_101_How_Votes_Are_Counted_and_Protected.html. Retrieved 27 November 2025.
* Votingsystem, Nu (2024). "Silent Voices: Why Certain Demographics Routinely Don't Show Up to Vote and What We're Missing". https://votingsystem-nu.vercel.app/Silent_Voices_Why_Certain_Demographics_Routinely_Dont_Show_Up_to_Vote_and_What_Were_Missing.html. Retrieved 27 November 2025.
* Votingsystem, Nu (2024). "Voting and Government in Ancient Greece: The Birth of Democracy". https://votingsystem-nu.vercel.app/Voting_and_Government_in_Ancient_Greece_The_Birth_of_Democracy.html. Retrieved 27 November 2025.
* Votingsystem, Nu (2024). "The Science Behind Voter Behavior: Why People Change Their Minds". https://votingsystem-nu.vercel.app/The_Science_Behind_Voter_Behavior_Why_People_Change_Their_Minds.html. Retrieved 27 November 2025.
* Votingsystem, Nu (2024). "Why Young Voters Don't Show Up: The Hidden Factors". https://votingsystem-nu.vercel.app/Why_Young_Voters_Dont_Show_Up_The_Hidden_Factors.html. Retrieved 27 November 2025.
* Votingsystem, Nu (2024). "Countries with Documented Election Irregularities: A 2024 Analysis". https://votingsystem-nu.vercel.app/Countries_with_Documented_Election_Irregularities_A_2024 _Analysis.html. Retrieved 27 November 2025.
* Brennan, Jason (2016) (in en). "Against Democracy". Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-16260-7.
* Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2018) (in en). "How Democracies Die". New York: Crown Publishing.

## External links

Library resources about
Democracy

* * *

* Resources in your library

* Democracy at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
* Podcast: Democracy Paradox, hundreds of interviews with democracy experts around the world

Links to related articles

Template:Government

* v
* t
* e

Age of Enlightenment

Topics

* Atheism
* Capitalism
* Civil liberties
* Counter-Enlightenment
* Critical thinking
* Deism
* Democracy
* Empiricism
* Encyclopédistes
* Enlightened absolutism
* Free markets
* Haskalah
* Humanism
* Human rights
* Liberalism
* Liberté, égalité, fraternité
* Methodological skepticism
* Nationalism
* Natural philosophy
* Objectivity
* Rationality
* Rationalism
* Reason
* Reductionism
* Sapere aude
* Science
* Scientific method
* Socialism
* Universality
* Weimar Classicism

Thinkers

| France|

* Jean le Rond d'Alembert
* René Louis d'Argenson
* Pierre Bayle
* Pierre Beaumarchais
* Nicolas Chamfort
* Émilie du Châtelet
* Étienne Bonnot de Condillac
* Marquis de Condorcet
* René Descartes
* Denis Diderot
* Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle
* Claude Adrien Helvétius
* Baron d'Holbach
* Louis de Jaucourt
* Julien Offray de La Mettrie
* Georges-Louis Leclerc
* Gabriel Bonnot de Mably
* Sylvain Maréchal
* Jean Meslier
* Montesquieu
* Étienne-Gabriel Morelly
* Blaise Pascal
* François Quesnay
* Guillaume Thomas François Raynal
* Marquis de Sade
* Anne Robert Jacques Turgot
* Voltaire

|

Geneva|

* Firmin Abauzit
* Charles Bonnet
* Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui
* Jean-Louis de Lolme
* Pierre Prévost
* Jean-Jacques Rousseau
* Antoine-Jacques Roustan
* Horace-Bénédict de Saussure
* Jacob Vernes
* Jacob Vernet

Germany|

* Justus Henning Böhmer
* Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
* Johann Gottfried von Herder
* Theodor Gottlieb von Hippel
* Wilhelm von Humboldt
* Immanuel Kant
* Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
* Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
* Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
* Moses Mendelssohn
* Samuel von Pufendorf
* Friedrich Schiller
* Christian Thomasius
* Gabriel Wagner
* Christian Felix Weiße
* Christoph Martin Wieland
* Thomas Wizenmann
* Christian Wolff

Greece|

* Neophytos Doukas
* Theoklitos Farmakidis
* Rigas Feraios
* Theophilos Kairis
* Adamantios Korais

Ireland|

* Robert Boyle
* Edmund Burke
* John Toland

Italy|

* Cesare Beccaria
* Gaetano Filangieri
* Ferdinando Galiani
* Luigi Galvani
* Antonio Genovesi
* Francesco Mario Pagano
* Giovanni Salvemini
* Pietro Verri
* Giambattista Vico

Netherlands|

* Balthasar Bekker
* Pieter de la Court
* Petrus Cunaeus
* Hugo Grotius
* François Hemsterhuis
* Christiaan Huygens
* Adriaan Koerbagh
* Frederik van Leenhof
* Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
* Bernard Nieuwentyt
* Baruch Spinoza
* Jan Swammerdam
* Hendrik Wyermars

Poland|

* Tadeusz Czacki
* Hugo Kołłątaj
* Stanisław Konarski
* Ignacy Krasicki
* Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz
* Stanisław August Poniatowski
* Jędrzej Śniadecki
* Stanisław Staszic
* Józef Wybicki
* Andrzej Stanisław Załuski
* Józef Andrzej Załuski

Portugal|

* Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo

Romania|

* Ion Budai-Deleanu
* Dinicu Golescu
* Petru Maior
* Samuil Micu-Klein
* Gheorghe Șincai

Russia|

* Catherine II
* Denis Fonvizin
* Mikhail Kheraskov
* Mikhail Lomonosov
* Nikolay Novikov
* Alexander Radishchev
* Yekaterina Vorontsova-Dashkova

Serbia|

* Dositej Obradović
* Avram Mrazović

Spain|

* José Cadalso
* Charles III
* Benito Jerónimo Feijóo y Montenegro
* Leandro Fernández de Moratín
* Valentin de Foronda
* Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos
* Martín Sarmiento
* Diego de Torres Villarroel

United Kingdom
(Scotland)|

* Joseph Addison
* Francis Bacon
* James Beattie
* Jeremy Bentham
* George Berkeley
* Joseph Black
* Hugh Blair
* James Boswell
* James Burnett, Lord Monboddo
* Anthony Collins
* Adam Ferguson
* Edward Gibbon
* Robert Hooke
* David Hume
* Francis Hutcheson
* Samuel Johnson
* John Locke
* John Millar
* Isaac Newton
* William Ogilvie
* Richard Price
* Joseph Priestley
* Thomas Reid
* Shaftesbury
* Adam Smith
* Dugald Stewart
* Mary Wollstonecraft

United States|

* Benjamin Franklin
* Thomas Jefferson
* James Madison
* George Mason
* Thomas Paine

* Category

* v
* t
* e

Political philosophy

Terms|

* Authority
* Citizenship‎
* Duty
* Elite
* Emancipation
* Freedom
* Government
* Hegemony
* Hierarchy
* Justice
* Law
* Legitimacy
* Liberty
* Monopoly
* Nation
* Obedience
* Peace
* People
* Pluralism
* Power
* Progress
* Propaganda
* Property
* Regime
* Revolution
* Rights
* Ruling class
* Society
* Sovereignty‎
* State
* Utopia
* War

Government|

* Aristocracy
* Oligarchy
* Autocracy
* Bureaucracy
* Dictatorship
* Democracy
* Ochlocracy
* Gerontocracy
* Meritocracy
* Monarchy
* Tyranny
* Plutocracy
* Republic
* Technocracy
* Theocracy

Ideologies|

* Agrarianism
* Anarchism
* Capitalism
* Christian democracy
* Colonialism
* Communism
* Communitarianism
* Confucianism
* Conservatism
* Corporatism
* Distributism
* Environmentalism
* Fascism
* Feminism
* Feudalism
* Hindutva
* Imperialism
* Islamism
* Liberalism
* Libertarianism
* Localism
* Marxism
* Monarchism
* Multiculturalism
* Nationalism
* Nazism
* Populism
* Republicanism
* Social Darwinism
* Social democracy
* Socialism
* Third Way

Concepts|

* Balance of power
* Bellum omnium contra omnes
* Body politic
* Clash of civilizations
* Common good
* Consent of the governed
* Divine right of kings
* Family as a model for the state
* Monopoly on violence
* Natural law
* Negative and positive rights
* Night-watchman state
* Noble lie
* Noblesse oblige
* Open society
* Ordered liberty
* Original position
* Overton window
* Separation of powers
* Social contract
* State of nature
* Statolatry
* Supermajority
* Tyranny of the majority

Philosophers|

| Antiquity|

* Aristotle
* Chanakya
* Cicero
* Confucius
* Han Fei
* Lactantius
* Mencius
* Mozi
* Plato
* political philosophy
* Polybius
* Shang
* Sun Tzu
* Thucydides
* Xenophon

|

Middle Ages|

* Al-Farabi
* Aquinas
* Averroes
* Bruni
* Dante
* Gelasius
* al-Ghazali
* Ibn Khaldun
* Marsilius
* Muhammad
* Nizam al-Mulk
* Ockham
* Plethon
* Wang

Early modern
period|

* Boétie
* Bodin
* Bossuet
* Calvin
* Campanella
* Filmer
* Grotius
* Guicciardini
* Hobbes
* political philosophy
* James
* Leibniz
* Locke
* Luther
* Machiavelli
* Milton
* More
* Müntzer
* Pufendorf
* Spinoza
* Suárez

18th and 19th
centuries|

* Al-Afghani
* Bakunin
* Bastiat
* Beccaria
* Bentham
* Bolingbroke
* Bonald
* Burke
* Carlyle
* Comte
* Condorcet
* Constant
* Cortés
* Engels
* Fichte
* Fourier
* Franklin
* Godwin
* Haller
* Hegel
* Herder
* Hume
* Iqbal
* Jefferson
* Kant
* political philosophy
* Le Bon
* Le Play
* Madison
* Maistre
* Marx
* Mazzini
* Mill
* Montesquieu
* Nietzsche
* Owen
* Paine
* Renan
* Rousseau
* Sade
* Saint-Simon
* Smith
* Spencer
* de Staël
* Stirner
* Taine
* Thoreau
* Tocqueville
* Tucker
* Voltaire

20th and 21st
centuries|

* Agamben
* Ambedkar
* Apo
* Arendt
* Aron
* Badiou
* Bauman
* Benoist
* Berlin
* Bernstein
* Burnham
* Chomsky
* Dmowski
* Du Bois
* Dugin
* Dworkin
* Evola
* Fanon
* Fisher
* Foucault
* Fromm
* Fukuyama
* Gandhi
* Gentile
* Gramsci
* Guénon
* Habermas
* Hayek
* Hoppe
* Huntington
* Kautsky
* Khomeini
* Kirk
* Kropotkin
* Laclau
* Lenin
* Luxemburg
* Mansfield
* Mao
* Marcuse
* Maurras
* Michels
* Mises
* Mosca
* Mouffe
* Negri
* Nozick
* Nursi
* Nussbaum
* Oakeshott
* Ortega
* Pareto
* Popper
* Qutb
* Rand
* Rawls
* Röpke
* Rothbard
* Russell
* Sartre
* Savarkar
* Schmitt
* Scruton
* Shariati
* Sorel
* Spann
* Spengler
* Strauss
* Sun
* Taylor
* Voegelin
* Walzer
* Weber

Works|

* Republic (c.375 BCE)
* Politics (c.350 BCE)
* Analects of Confucius (c.475 BCE-1279 CE)
* On the Republic (51 BCE)
* Siyasatnama (11th century)
* Treatise on Law (c. 1274)
* Monarchy (1313)
* Muqaddimah (1337)
* The Prince (1532)
* Leviathan (1651)
* Two Treatises of Government (1689)
* The Spirit of Law (1748)
* The Social Contract (1762)
* Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)
* Rights of Man (1791)
* Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820)
* Democracy in America (1835–1840)
* The Communist Manifesto (1848)
* On Liberty (1859)
* The Revolt of the Masses (1929)
* The Road to Serfdom (1944)
* The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
* The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)
* The Wretched of the Earth (1961)
* A Theory of Justice (1971)
* The End of History and the Last Man (1992)

Related|

* Authoritarianism
* Collectivism and individualism
* Conflict theories
* Contractualism
* Critique of political economy
* Egalitarianism
* Elite theory
* Elitism
* History of political thought
* Institutional discrimination
* Jurisprudence
* Justification for the state
* Political ethics
* Political spectrum
* Left-wing politics
* Centrism
* Right-wing politics
* Religion in politics
* Christianity
* Islam
* Judaism
* Secular state
* Separation of church and state
* State atheism
* Political violence
* Separatism
* Social justice
* Statism
* Totalitarianism

* Category:Political philosophy

* v
* t
* e

Western world and culture

Aspects|

* Canon
* Law
* Literature
* Media
* Music
* Painting
* Modern/Contemporary Painting
* Philosophy
* Religion
* Thought

History|

* Classical antiquity
* Late Antiquity
* Early Middle Ages
* Middle Ages
* Late Middle Ages
* Renaissance
* Reformation
* Age of Enlightenment
* Early modern period
* Great Divergence
* Modernism
* World Wars

Find out more on Wikipedia's
Sister projects|

* Definitions
from Wiktionary

|

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social:Democracy&oldid=4554996"
*[c.]: circa
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template