Mediaboss Marketing

A democracy is a form of government in which the people, either directly or indirectly, take part in governing. The word democracy originates from Greek, and means rule of the people.

Distinctions

Democratic governments can be divided into different types, based on a number of different distinctions. The most important distinction is between direct democracy and indirect democracy. The latter type is the most common one.

A direct democracy is a political system in which all citizens are allowed to influence policy by means of a direct vote, or referendum, on any particular issue.

Indirect democracy is a term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives.

A representative democracy is a system in which the people elect government officials who then make decisions on their behalf. This is often referred to as Republic, particularly in historical usages and in constitutional theory. Modern definitions of that term, however, refer to any State with an elective Head of State and most monarchies are representative democracies.

Essentially, a representative democracy is a form of indirect democracy in which leaders and representatives are democratically selected. A doctrine ofter known as Edmund Burke's Principle states that representatives should act upon their own conscience in the affairs of a representative democracy. There is also an expectation that such representatives should consider the views of their electors - particularly in the case of States with strong constituiency links. Some critics of representative democracy argue that party politics mean that representatives will be forced to follow the party line on issues, rather than either the will of their conscience or constituents.

Another form of indirect democracy is delegative democracy. In delegative democracy, delegates are selected and expected to act on the wishes of the constituency. In this form of democracy the constituency may recall the delegate at any time. One critique of delegative democracy is that it can be used to filter out the will of the base element if too many layers are added to the structure of decision making.

One important issue in a democracy is the suffrage, or the franchise - that is the decision as to who ought to be entitled to vote. Recent example of how the "right to vote" changed over history is New Zealand, which was the first country to give women the right to vote (19 September 1893). In the Athenian democracy, slaves and women were prohibited from voting.

Another important concern in a democracy is the so-called "tyranny of the majority". In a pure democracy, a majority would be empowered to do anything it wanted to any unfavored minority. For example, in a pure democracy it is theoretically possible for a majority to vote that a certain religion should be illegalized, and its members punished with death. In some countries, their Constitution intentionally designs a representative rather than a direct democracy in part to avoid the danger of the tyranny of the majority. Some proponents of direct democracy argue that not all direct democracies need to be pure democracies. They argue that just as there is a special constitutional process for amending articles in the constitutions of traditional Republics, there could be a distinction between legislation which would be handled through direct democracy and the modification of constitutional rights which would have a more deliberative procedure there attached.

Direct and Representative Democracy

Direct democracy becomes more and more difficult, and necessarily more closely approximates representative democracy, as the number of citizens grows. Historically, the most direct democracies would include the New England town meeting, and the political system of the ancient Greek city states.

There are concerns about how such systems would scale to larger populations, in this subject there are a number of experiences being conducted all over the world to increase the direct participation of citizens in what is now a representative system:

We can view direct and indirect democracies as ideal types, with actual democracies approximating more closely to the one or the other. Some modern political entities are closest to direct democracies, such as Switzerland or some U.S. States, where frequent use is made of referenda, and means are provided for referenda to be initiated by petition instead of by members of the legislature or the government.

However, elections are not a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy, in fact elections can be used by totalitarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. Some examples are 1960s right-wing military dicatorships in South America, left-wing totalitarian states like the USSR until 1991 or the more prominent III Reich, in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s.

Representative democracy is the most commonly used system of government in countries generally considered "democratic". However, it should be noted that the definition used to classify countries as "democratic" was crafted by Europeans and is directly influenced by the dominating cultures in those countries; care should be taken when applying it to other cultures that are tribal in nature and do no have the same historical background as the current "democratic" countries.

Discussion on Direct Democracy

The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to direct democracy as a form of government is that it is open to demagoguery. It is for this reason that the United States was established as, in the terminology used at the time , a "republic" rather than a "democracy". Thus Benjamin Franklin's famous answer, to the question as to what sort of government the "Founding Fathers" had established, was: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Alternative Definition of 'Democracy'

There is another definition of democracy from that given above, though it is less commonly used. According to this definition, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy is referred to as a "republic". Using this definition, most western coutries' system of government is referred to as a "democratic-republic," rather than a democracy.

The words "democracy" and "republic" were wrongly used by some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. They argued that only a representative democracy (what they called a 'republic') could properly protect the rights of the individual; they used the word 'democracy' to refer to direct democracy, which they considered tyrannical.

From the time of old Greece up to now the definition of the word "democracy" has changed, according to most political scientists today (and most common English speakers) the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it be direct or representative. The term "republic" today commonly means, a politicial system with a head of state elected for a limited term, as opposed to a constitutional monarchy.

Note however that the older terms are still sometimes used in discussions of politicial theory, especially when considering the works of Aristotle or the American "Founding Fathers". This older terminology also has some popularity in conservative and Libertarian politics in the United States.

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

See the original post:
Kids.Net.Au - Encyclopedia > Democracy

Democracy Spring is a movement organization committed to winning fundamental reforms to end the corruption of big money in politics and guarantee the right to vote for all Americans. We use campaigns of escalating nonviolent action to achieve this goal and believe in the power of mass civil disobedience to transform our political system.

Last April, we brought together over 1,300 people to risk arrest on the steps of our nation's Capitol, demanding that Congress take immediate action to get money out of politics and ensure free and fair elections for all, making it the largest single act of civil disobedience of the 21st century in the United States.

In Philadelphia, we took mass nonviolent direct action to barricade the entrance to the DNC, demanding thatDemocratic Party leadershippublicly commit to pass sweeping democracy reforms to overturn Citizens United, establish publicly funded elections, and ensure comprehensive voting rights protections for all Americans within the first 100 days of a new administration AND that they abolish superdelegates immediately.

On December 19, 2016 we mobilized thousands of Americans from all 50 states to protest Donald Trump's undemocratic rise to power by calling on the Electoral College to respect the will of the people and refuse to vote for Trump.

In 2017, we are building a mass movement of nonviolent civil resistance capable of wrenching political power from elites and putting it in the hands of the people by winning sweeping democracy reforms.

Every American deserves an equal voice in government. That is our birthright of freedom, won through generations of struggle. But today our democracy is in crisis.American elections are dominated by billionaires and big money interests who can spend unlimited sums of money on political campaigns to protect their special interests at the general expense. Meanwhile, as the super-rich dominate the money primary that decides who can run for office, almost half of the states in the union have passed new laws that disenfranchise everyday voters, especially people of color and the poor.

This corruption violates the core principle of American democracy one person, one vote citizen equality. And it is blocking reform on virtually every critical issue facing our country: from addressing historic economic inequality, to tackling climate change and ending mass incarceration. We simply cannot solve the urgent crises that face our nation if we dont save democracy first.

But if the status quo goes unchallenged, the 2016 election already set to be the most billionaire-dominated, secret money-drenched, voter suppression-marred contest in modern American history will likely yield a President and a Congress more bound to the masters of big money than ever before. And our planet and people just cant afford that. But there is another possibility.

The moment is ripe. Poll after poll shows transpartisan public frustration with the corrupt status quo reaching new, nearly unanimous highs. Voters in Maine and Seattle just passed bold new anti-corruption laws to enact citizen funded elections. A growing democracy movement has lifted this issue into the public debate. Yet Congress refuses to act.

The stage is set for a bold intervention to turn the tinder of passive public frustration into a fire that transforms the political climate in America, that sparks a popular movement that can't be stopped. How? From Selma to Occupy Wall Street, the Tar Sands Action to Black Lives Matter, everyday people have proven the power of mass, escalating nonviolent action to rapidly shift the political weather and open the door to reforms previously considered impossible.

Right now, as the national election takes center stage, Americans of all ages, faiths, political perspectives, and walks of life have brought the popular cry for change to Washington in a way that's been impossible to ignore: with nonviolent civil disobedience on a historic scale.

When we arrived in DC on April 11th, we gave Congress a simple choice: either take immediate action to end the corruption of big money in politics and ensure the right to vote or arrest over 1,300 Americans simply for demanding an equal voice in government. Their refusal to act and their readiness to condemn so many exposes the depth of corruption that pervades our political system.

The historic march and capitol sit-ins this April inspired millions of people across the country. But that was just a beginning. From here, we need to take the fight home to states across the union, challenging candidates and elected officials to take a side, lifting up those whodeclare their supportfor fundamental reforms to fix or democracy, and exposing those who refuse to do so as defenders of the corrupt status quo. We will disrupt their fundraisers, their debates, their press conferences, and ultimately, their chances at the polls.

We have been able to focus the nations attention as never before on the urgency of this crisis, the existence of solutions to it, and the strength of the popular demand to enact them. Now, we will make this election a referendum on whether our democracy should belong to the People as a whole or to the billionaire class alone.

Thats a referendum we can win, setting the stage to achieve fundamental reform that will give us finally the democracy for all we were promised.

This is the hour to stand tall, to challenge each other to rise to this historic moment in which we did not choose to live, but which we now must choose to face. With love, with courageous hope, with the legacy of those who struggled for freedom before us in our minds we must act with a determination matching the urgency of this crisis. Join us.

#DemocracySpring

See the article here:
Democracy Spring

The United States may no longer be the bastion of democracy its citizens have come to hold as an American value, according to a report released Wednesday.

The 2016 Democracy Index, produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit in the United Kingdom, now lists the U.S. as a "flawed democracy" instead of the "full democracy" ranking it's held previously, citing the declining trust in government as the cause.

The downgrade now puts the U.S. at 21 in international rankings, below Japan and tied with Italy. The number of "full democracies" dropped in 2016 from 20 to 19, according to the report.

The economic organization gives grades through five categories: Electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. It then ranks countries as either a full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime and authoritarian regime.

While the report was released the first week of the presidency of Donald Trump, the group stressed the lower ranking was not due to the new administration, but rather to public confidence in government.

"By tapping a deep strain of political disaffection with the functioning of democracy, Mr. Trump became a beneficiary of the low esteem in which U.S. voters hold their government, elected representatives and political parties, but he was not responsible for a problem that has had a long gestation," the report reads.

The U.S. has been "teetering on the brink of becoming a flawed democracy" for years, according to the report.

The erosion of the U.S. public trust in government began in the 1960s with the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy and the Watergate scandal, the report says, using data from the Pew Research Center.

Trust in political institutions is an essential component of well-functioning democracies, the report said. Yet surveys by Pew, Gallup and other polling agencies have confirmed that public confidence in government has slumped to historic lows in the U.S. This has had a corrosive effect on the quality of democracy.

The United States wasn't the only country to see a drop. Almost half of the 167 countries in the report had their grade lowered in 2016 by the group.

In terms of rankings, the top three scores went to Norway, Iceland and Sweden. The lowest ranked countries in the authoritarian regime group included North Korea, Syria, Chad, and the Central African Republic.

Read more:
US no longer a 'full democracy,' report claims - Fox News

FiveThirtyEight

Chat: How's Our Democracy Doing? FiveThirtyEight micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): After Donald Trump won the election, a lot of people journalists, academics, regular folks raised concerns about the future of our democracy. Would Trump upend democratic norms and violate core principles?

See the rest here:
Chat: How's Our Democracy Doing? - FiveThirtyEight

There is a new incumbent in the White House, a new Congress has been sworn in, and scientists around the country are nervous as hell.

Were nervous because there seems to be a seismic shift going on in Washington, D.C., and its relationship with facts, scientific reality, and objective truth has never been more strained.

Already, in the opening days of his administration, Mr. Trumps Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, willfully ignored clear, empirical evidence about the size of the inauguration crowds, and bristled at the suggestion experts said they were smaller than in years past. He seemed almost paranoid, and insinuated that a media conspiracyrather than simple arithmeticwas trying to embarrass his boss. And the Trump Administration continues to claim, without any evidence, that widespread voter fraud cost Mr. Trump the popular vote, even though this has been thoroughly debunked by numerous, bipartisan sourcesincluding his own lawyers.

Even more bizarrely, Kellyanne Conway, a senior advisor to Mr. Trump, has offered up the notion that alternative facts, rather than actual truth, were in play now. I dont know what alternative facts are, but I think my parents generation would have called them falsehoods or even lies.

But its not just absence of facts thats troubling, it is the apparent effort to derail science and the pursuit of facts themselves.

Already, we have learned that multiple agencies, including the USDA and the EPA, have ordered their scientists to stop speaking to the public about their research. The CDC suddenly cancelled a long-planned, international conference on the health impacts of climate change. And when the Badlands National Park started using its Twitter account to discuss the issue of climate changeas any nature center, park, or science museum might dothe tweets were immediately deleted. Most disturbingly, the EPA has immediately suspended all of their grants and contracts, and ordered the review of all scientific work by political appointees, including efforts to collect data, conduct research, and share information with the broader publica public, we should remember, that paid for the work in the first place.

And its only been five days since Mr. Trump took office.

A disturbing pattern seems to be emerging. Facts, and the pursuit of facts, dont seem to matter to this White House. Or, worse yet, they matter a lot and are being suppressed.

Fact checking the Trump campaign was always a surreal exercise, but we all knew that he came from the world of entertainment, and that shoot-from-the-hip, I-say-what-I-think style was part of his charm, part of his brand. People fed up with regular politicians loved his brash style. It was refreshing to many.

But now that Mr. Trump is in power, this is no longer about ratings and entertaining television. Its about ensuring the fundamental legitimacy and credibility of the worlds most powerful office. If we cant trust the facts being discussed in the White House, what can we trust?

Ultimately, a healthy democracy depends on science. The pursuit of truth, having an informed citizenry, and the free and open exchange of ideas are all cornerstones of our democracy. Thats one thing that always made America truly greatthe fact that, when all is said and done, evidence and the truth would always win the day in America. Without that, we join the league of ordinary nations.

And even if you arent worried about factual evidence, the veracity of our leaders, or the independence of science from political interference, I would urge you to look a little farther down the slippery slope. If facts dont matter to the White House, especially when theyre inconvenient, whats next? Laws?

Let me be clear: This isnt a partisan thing. Scientists arentand shouldnt be!worried about which political party is in power. It rarely mattered: There has always been a long tradition of bipartisan support for science and a fact-based world view. In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists has ranked both Republican and Democratic presidents as being exceptional supporters of science, ranging from Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush.

Wise leaders, of both parties, have always recognized the value of independent science to our democracy.

But theres something different about this Administration. Something troubling. And scientists need to stand up and call it out. While we generally avoid political conversations, scientists should always stand up for facts, objectivity, and the independence of science itself. Not doing so would be almost unethical.

So, to Mr. Trump, I would say this:

If this is all just a series of missteps, caused by over-zealous mid-level managers during a confusing presidential transition, so be it. Say so. Fix it. Get out on the public stage and affirm your commitment to facts, to truth, and to the independent pursuit of science without political interference. The vast majority of your fellow Americans would applaud you for this. It would be brave. It would be wise. And it would show some class.

But if this is actually part of your governing philosophy, I would give you a warning on behalf of my fellow scientists: Do not mess with us. Do not try to bury the truth. Do not interfere with the free and open pursuit of science. You do so at your peril.

Americans dont look kindly on bullies, people who try to suppress the truth, or people who try to intimidate scientists and the press. In the long run, this always backfires. The dustbin of history is full of people who have tried, and failed. You will too.

The next time you visit the CIA headquarters, I hope you will take a moment to notice their unofficial motto, etched in the walls of the lobby. It says, And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." (John VIII-XXXII.)

It does. And scientists like me, and Americans of all backgrounds, will always fight for it.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Original post:
The War on Facts is a War on Democracy - Scientific American (blog)