Mediaboss Marketing

For the use of the term "democracy" as referring to a system involving multiparty elections, representative government, and freedom of speech, see Liberal democracy. For other uses, see Democracy (disambiguation).

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equallyeither directly or through elected representativesin the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

The term originates from the Greek (dmokrata) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from (dmos) "people" and (kratos) "power" in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to (aristocratie) "rule of an elite." While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically.[2] The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.

A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[3] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[4]

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 direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions.[5]

While no consensus exists on how to define democracy, equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.[6][7] These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[8][9]

One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: 1) upward control, i.e. sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority, 2) political equality, and 3) social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality.[10]

The term "democracy" is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.[citation needed]

In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (while maintaining judicial independence).[citation needed] In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles also are applicable to private organizations.

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy.[by whom?] Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[11] and procedurally.[12] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential rights that allow eligible citizens to be adequately informed and able to vote according to their own interests.[13][14]

Original post:
democracy: Definition from Answers.com

Author and Page information by Anup Shah This Page Last Updated Saturday, January 28, 2012 This page: http://www.globalissues.org/article/761/democracy. To print all information e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links, use the print version:

Democracy (rule by the people when translated from its Greek meaning) is seen as one of the ultimate ideals that modern civilizations strive to create, or preserve. Democracy as a system of governance is supposed to allow extensive representation and inclusiveness of as many people and views as possible to feed into the functioning of a fair and just society. Democratic principles run in line with the ideals of universal freedoms such as the right to free speech.

Importantly, democracy supposedly serves to check unaccountable power and manipulation by the few at the expense of the many, because fundamentally democracy is seen as a form of governance by the people, for the people. This is often implemented through elected representatives, which therefore requires free, transparent, and fair elections, in order to achieve legitimacy.

The ideals of democracy are so appealing to citizens around the world, that many have sacrificed their livelihoods, even their lives, to fight for it. Indeed, our era of civilization is characterized as much by war and conflict as it is by peace and democracy. The twentieth century alone has often been called the century of war.

In a way, the amount of propaganda and repression some non-democratic states set up against their own people is a testament to the peoples desire for more open and democratic forms of government. That is, the more people are perceived to want it, the more extreme a non-democratic state apparatus has to be to hold on to power.

However, even in established democracies, there are pressures that threaten various democratic foundations. A democratic systems openness also allows it to attract those with vested interests to use the democratic process as a means to attain power and influence, even if they do not hold democratic principles dear. This may also signal a weakness in the way some democracies are set up. In principle, there may be various ways to address this, but in reality once power is attained by those who are not genuinely support democracy, rarely is it easily given up.

The word democracy literally means rule by the people, taken from the Greek terms, demos (meaning people), and kratos (meaning rule). It is a political concept and form of government, where all people are supposed to have equal voices in shaping policy (typically expressed through a vote for representatives).

The Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, the student of Plato and teacher to Alexander the Great, is considered one of the most important founders of what is now described as Western philosophy. In his work, Politics, he offered some comparisons with other forms of government and rule, but also included some warnings,

It is often supposed that there is only one kind of democracy and one of oligarchy. But this is a mistake.

...

View original post here:
Democracy - Global Issues : social, political, economic ...

BEIJING China's legislature on Sunday ruled out allowing open nominations in the inauguralelection forHongKong'sleader, saying they would create a "chaotic society." Democracy activists in the Asian financial hub responded by saying that a long-threatened mass occupation of the heart of the city "will definitely happen."

In setting tight limits on how far electoral reforms can go inHongKong, Beijing issued its firmest reminder yet that it's still in charge despite the substantial autonomy it promised the city after taking control from Britain in 1997.

The guidelines laid down by China's communist leaders ratchet up the potential for a showdown pitting Beijing againstHongKongdemocracy supporters, a group that represents a broad swath of society, including students, religious leaders, and financial workers.

The decision by the legislature's powerful Standing Committee sharpens fears that China wants to screen candidates for loyalty to the central government and is reneging on its promise to letHongKong'sleader be directlyelectedby voters, rather than the current committee of mostly pro-Beijing tycoons.

"At this very moment, the path of dialogue has been exhausted," said Benny Tai, a leader of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace protest movement, which has vowed to rally at least 10,000 people to paralyze HongKong'sfinancial district known as Central to press demands for genuine democracy.

The group will launch "wave after wave of protest action" in the coming weeks "until we get to a point when we launch the all-out Occupy Central action," Tai told reporters. University students are also planning to boycott classes next month.

Thousands of people gathered in a park across fromHongKonggovernment headquarters Sunday evening to protest the widely expected announcement, chanting slogans and waving their cellphones.

Earlier in the day, Li Fei, deputy secretary general of the National People's Congress' Standing Committee, told a news conference in Beijing that openly nominating candidates would create a "chaotic society."

Under the legislature's guidelines, a maximum of three candidates, each approved by more than half of a 1,200-member nominating committee, will be put forth toHongKong's5 million eligible voters in 2017. The public will have no say in choosing candidates, raising fears of what some have termed "fake democracy."

"These rights come from laws, they don't come from the sky," Li said. "ManyHongKongpeople have wasted a lot of time discussing things that are not appropriate and aren't discussing things that are appropriate."

Go here to see the original:
'Fake democracy'? China tightens restrictions on Hong Kong election

Mayor Robert Doyle should be congratulated for this bold move. Photo: Angela Wylie

A radical experiment in democracy has begun at Melbourne Town Hall. But it does not involve online activism, marching in the streets, or the Occupy Movement. Instead it draws on the earliest democratic traditions together with some new thinking from social scientists to trial a new approach to public decision-making on tough issues.

Melbourne City Council has recruited a "People's Panel" of everyday Melburnians to make recommendations on how the council should prioritise spending over the next decade. The panel comprises 46 residents, business owners and students who have been randomly selected to represent a broad cross-section of the community.

Over the next three months panel members will be given open access to information and financial data about council, along with briefings by experts, senior bureaucrats and councillors. Like citizens serving on a jury, the panel members will deliberate over what they have heard and will reach a verdict in the form of recommendations to councillors on priority projects, services, revenue and spending.

The Herald Sun and the Institute of Public Affairs have already come out swinging against this exercise. They have attacked the $150,000 cost and accused council of "subcontracting the responsibility to make decisions councillors are equipped to make themselves".

Advertisement

Once upon a time I would have agreed with these views. But the fact is the first 14 years of this millennium have not been great for democracy. Australia's political system is in pretty crook shape our democracy seems incapable of solving tough problems such as climate change, tax reform or balancing the budget.

A Lowy Poll in June found that only 60 per cent of Australians believe that "democracy is preferable to any other kind of government". And a recent ANU survey found that Australians' satisfaction with democracy had slumped from 86 per cent in 2007 to 72 per cent in 2014.

There is no simple explanation for this decline. And there is no simple or single solution. But we need to start experimenting with new models that just might help governments get good but difficult things done.

Australia has had two major waves of democratic reform: the establishment of the states in the 1850s, and the creation of the federation in 1901. At both of these points Australia arguably led the world in democratic innovation.

Read the original post:
For democracy's sake, give power to the people

Setting up a showdown with democracy activists, Chinas top legislative body said Sunday that Hong Kong residents can vote directly for their next leader in 2017 but that only two or three candidates will be allowed and all must be approved by special nominating committee.

Tension has been building for months over rules for the 2017 election of a new chief executive of the largely autonomous former British territory, which returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997 under a framework known as one country, two systems. The drama has mounted this summer amid a series of rallies and counter-rallies, petition drives and even an unofficial vote that drew nearly 800,000 participants.

The Basic Law outlining terms of the 1997 handover granted Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy for 50 years, and the regions 7 million residents enjoy greater freedom of speech, assembly and other rights than their counterparts in the Communist-run mainland.

Until now, the citys chief executive has been selected by a 1,200-member panel regarded as largely pro-Beijing. But the Basic Law provides for a universal suffrage system to be adopted as soon as the 2017 election, and democracy activists have been pushing for balloting that measures up to what they call international standards for free and fair election.

Activists say one-person, one-vote will be meaningless if candidates all have to be approved by a nominating committee they see as beholden to Beijings interests. Instead, theyve been pushing for an open nominations system, allowing any candidate with a modicum of public support to join the race. If that doesnt happen, they have proposed blockading Hong Kongs central business district to press their demands.

Beijing, however, contends that an open nominations system is counter to the Basic Law. And mainland officials and some Hong Kong business groups have warned that democracy sit-ins would throw the Asian financial hub into chaos and gridlock.

In announcing the elections framework Sunday in Beijing, Li Fei, deputy secretary general of the National Peoples Congress standing committee, said an open-nominations system would create a chaotic society.

Many Hong Kongers have wasted a lot of time discussing things that are not appropriate, he told a news conference.

The committee, in announcing its decision, said authorities must proceed in a prudent and steady manner because the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and the sovereignty, security and development interests of the country are at stake.

But activists argue that a failure to forcefully push forward with democratic reforms constitutes an even greater threat to the territorys long-term prosperity and stability, noting that the citys status as a world financial center is due substantially to its Western-style legal system and liberties. They point to a growing wealth gap, sky-high housing costs and increasing influence from the mainland as eroding their quality of life and say the current chief executive, C.Y. Leung, has been unresponsive to citizens needs.

See the article here:
China sets limits on 2017 Hong Kong popular vote, dismaying activists