Democracy in Brief

What is Democracy?
There seems to be a great confusion what the word Democracy means. In spite of the fact that at least in some parts of the world one can hear it from the media every day.
Democracy by definition means the government by people. That means that all the people should be able to have their say in one way another in everything that affects their lives. Dictionaries usually say that this right can either be exercised directly (by every member of a community having the possibility to enter personally, without mediators, his position on a particular issue into the decision making process - modern technology is able to provide this possibility for increasingly larger and larger communities), or through representatives (members of legislative bodies). This second arrangement is then called Representative Democracy.
Representative democracy would be fine if the representatives would really make all their decisions only after consulting their constituencies. In the least, after having a clear idea about the views of their constituents on a particular issue, and trying to accommodate these views as best as possible (or postpone the decisions until an overwhelming majority of the constituents would be happy with them).
Unfortunately, a vast majority of countries that call themselves Representative Democracies are not true democracies according to the above definition. Most of them are actually just Elected Dictatorships. People can vote usually only once every four or five years. They do not vote on any issues. They just elect their so called representatives who then until the next elections have no obligations by law and little incentives to base their decisions on individual issues on the wishes on their electorate. They hardly ever bother to consult them on their stands on various issues. Therefore, legislative bodies composed of such "representatives" act in a very dictatorial manner between the elections. The only country that is quite close to the definition of Democracy isSwitzerland (more or less since 1291)
-------------------------------------------------
Democracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in 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 δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" or "rule" in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systemsthen existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (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.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by one person, 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 Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions.[5]

-------------------------------------------------
Characteristics
No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but equality, freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics 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 typically 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] Roger Scruton argues that democracy alone can't provide personal and political freedom unless the institutions of civil society are also present.[11]
In many countries, notably the United Kingdom which originated the Westminster system, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty, while maintaining judicial independence.[12] In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute. In India, the world's largest democracy, parliamentary supremacy is subject to a constitution which includes judicial review.[13] Other uses of "democracy" include that of 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. 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[14] and procedurally.[15] 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.[16][17]
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.[18] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the all voters, democracy can also be characterized 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 the decisions that affect their lives.[19]
While democracy is often equated with the republican form of government, the term "republic" classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies.[20][21] Some democracies are constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom andJapan.
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
Direct
Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to: 1. Change constitutional laws, 2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws, 3. Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise.
Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies today. This is part of a gradual shift towards direct democracies. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level in many countries, though these systems often coexist with representative assemblies. Usually, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.[19]
Representative
Main article: Representative democracy
Representative democracy involves the election of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic.[67] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.
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 judgment as how best to do so.
Parliamentary
Main article: Parliamentary system
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.[68][69][70][71]
Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister at any point in time that they feel he or she is not doing their job to 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 by a majority support for his or her dismissal.[72] In some countries, the Prime Minister can also call an election whenever he or she so chooses, and typically the Prime Minister will hold an election when he or she knows that they are in good favor 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.
Presidential
Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. 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. Elections typically have a fixed date and aren't easily changed. The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself.[72]
The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature, but he or she cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily. 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.[72]
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.[72]
Constitutional
A constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).
In a constitutional democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with formal government elsewhere.
Hybrid
Some modern democracies that are predominately 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 hybrid democracies[73] orsemi-direct democracies. Examples include Switzerland and some U.S. states, where frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives.
Although managed by a representative legislative body, Switzerland allows for initiatives and referendums at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years less than 250 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government.[citation needed]
In the United States, no mechanisms of direct democracy exists at the federal level, but over half of the states and many localities provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures", "ballot questions" or "propositions"), and the vast majority of states allow for referendums. Examples include the extensive use of referendums in the US state of California, which is a state that has more than 20 million voters.[74]
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 state government which is representative. 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 an opportunity to speak and by heard on political matters.[75]
Variants
Republic
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[76] 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.[77]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger 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.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[78] 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 U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[79]
Constitutional monarchy
Initially after the American and French revolutions, the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an élite upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles.
Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). Many nations had élite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States).
Socialist
Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.
Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented through a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism.)
Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians.
—Che Guevara, Speech, Uruguay, 1961[80]
Anarchist
Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a majority-rule is tyrannic or not. The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[81] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[82] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[83]
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.[84] Henry David Thoreau, who did not self-identify as an anarchist but argued for "a better government"[85] and is cited as an inspiration by some anarchists, argued that people should not be in the position of ruling others or being ruled when there is no consent.
Demarchy
Main article: Demarchy
Sometimes called "democracy without elections", demarchy uses sortition to choose decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection.
Consensus
Main article: Consensus democracy
Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.
Supranational
Qualified majority voting is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in the European Council of Ministers. This system allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. This might be seen as a form of representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed rather than directly elected.
Some might consider the "individuals" being democratically represented to be states rather than people, as with many others. European Parliament members are democratically directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a supranational democratic institution.
Non-governmental
Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other kinds of communities and organizations. Many non-governmental organizations decide policy and leadership by voting. Most trade unions andcooperatives are governed by democratic elections. Corporations are controlled by shareholders on the principle of one share, one vote.

What are the characteristics of a democratic government?
A democratic government, in the modern parlance of political science (which defines these terms), describes any system where the people fairly elect their own leaders. If there is an elected head of state, that government is a republic. If there is a hereditary king or queen as head of state, that government is called a constitutional monarchy. Both republics and constitutional monarchies are democracies; they are not direct democracies, however, which do away with elected representatives in favour of rule by popular referendum (no country today uses such a system). So, all democracies have elected representatives.

At its most basic, a democracy is a system of government where leaders are chosen by election, but there are other criteria. After all, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Egypt all have elections, but they are emphatically not democracies. Even the USSR had elections, which were claimed to prove that the government had the support of the people, despite their being totally fraudulent.

Typically, democracies have broad adult suffrage for all citizens. In other words, minority groups (at least those that are citizens) and women have the right to vote. A democracy must also have competitive, free, and fair elections. This means, first, that people may run for office without hindrance if they meet the legal qualifications, regardless of their political views, and the outcome is not preordained by the government (a competitive, free election). Secondly, the election is conducted so that all votes count relatively equally, fraud is minimized, and all major parties have access to media, without the government using private- or state-owned media to reward its allies and punish its enemies (a fair election). An election that does not meet these criteria is fraudulent and undemocratic. This was attempted in Ukraine in 2004, but pro-democracy advocates managed to expose the fraud and overturn the government in a remarkably peaceful Orange Revolution. If an election return has more than 90% support for the government candidate, as often happens in the former Soviet Union, then fraud is a likely explanation. Democracies also presume that the leaders are accountable to the electorate, even after coming to power. If they do not do the will of the people, in some fashion, then they will fall from power. Being elected does not give them the indefinite right to rule as they choose without popular consequences.

Political scientists debate what other traits are part of democratic government. Some say that competitive elections are sufficient, but most would say that additional criteria are involved in defining a democracy. For one thing, democracy is relatively meaningless if it can only be expressed during votes. Thus, a democracy must have protections for individual freedoms, particularly to speak their minds, even against government policy and leaders, and the right to assemble in protest. The extent to which a person is free to speak varies even among democracies (the US being generally more permissive than the UK, for example), but all have a fundamental principle that protest and speech are part of society.

A democracy also conforms to the rule of law, which means that the law is supreme and binding on everyone, even the government. This is true whether a country has a written constitution (like the USA) or an unwritten one, like the UK. Governments cannot simply ignore laws -- if, for example, elections for a representative parliament must be held no less than every five years, the government (even if it has been popularly elected) cannot simply overturn that without following rules designed to ensure popular consent. Likewise, elected officials cannot be above the law: if bribery and soliciting a murder are crimes for the average citizen, then the same laws apply to legislators, even to the prime minister or president.

Additionally, democracies are characterized by their openness and access to information. The government does not sharply police the books people read, or the magazines to which they subscribe, or the internet sites they visit (provided that those sites do not promote illegal activity). People have access to alternate sources of information, and all media is not controlled exclusively by the government.

Many democratic systems also feature a division of power, typically with an independent judiciary and (in parliamentary systems) an independent head of state. While the Queen of England, for example, is really a figurehead leader, she could dissolve Parliament and demand new elections if the leadership was egregiously violating the public trust. Likewise, the German Constitutional Court has the power to examine the laws passed by the parliament, to ensure that they conform to the German constitution. These principles mean that all power is not vested in a single, all-powerful leader or group of leaders. Some democracies (notably the US, Canada, and Germany) also divide power between national and regional governments (federalism). However, other democracies (Japan, France, and the UK) use a unitary system of government, where all real power rests with the national government, and local governments have only limited authority granted to them by parliament.

Finally, democratic governments are presumed to be independent, acting without coercion. If, for example, the threat of attack from a foreign country dictates all national policy, then that state cannot be said to be fully democratic. Likewise, if a government is held partially hostage by threat of its own military launching a coup, or the bureaucracy dictates policy of its own accord, regardless of the decisions of the government, or if unelected religious leaders have some sort of de facto veto over policy, then such a system is also inherently undemocratic, because it does not conform to popular will.

Some theorists go even further, and say that criteria like low income gaps, economic opportunity (the ability to better oneself), and a social safety net (such as universal health care and/or welfare programs) are crucial characteristics of successful democratic government, but this is more debated, and represents the "maximalist" definition of democracy. Even the minimalist definition, however, includes the features in the above paragraphs.

There are no perfect democracies, since every system has flaws and limitations. However, if you'd like to know more about countries that are classed as free or partly free, FreedomHouse.org is an excellent resource, used by political scientists across the globe.
Source(s):
Political scientist