Trying to define "Democracy" is a difficult task. Democracy has developed over the course of history and is present in many different forms today. These are known as types of democracies. Two other fundamentally different ways are available for recognizing the differences: The identity and competition theories. We will restrict our definition of democracy to the three headings shown below:

[Back to top of page]

[Greek, "rule of the people"], A form of government in which state authority is derived directly and/or indirectly from the people. - European democracy has its roots in Ancient Greece where it developed in the city-states as a direct or indirect democracy.
(...) Modern democracy developed, firstly, out of the Calvinist religious movement during the 17th century especially in Scotland, England and Holland where communities began supporting religious and political life and, secondly, out of the guiding principles from the enlightenment period and in particular out of its beliefs on freedom and equality for all and the normative importance of reasonable thought by individuals on state and society. Theories by J. J. Rousseau on sovereignty of the people as an indivisible and inalienable right of the people were fundamental in this.
(...) The first modern democratic state was established in the USA. France was the first European state to be founded on democratic principles following the French Revolution.
(...) Western democracies also differ a great deal in their structure and function: The most fundamental difference is the split between the plebiscite and representative form of democracy. Plebiscite forms of government are set apart by the direct involvement of the people in legislative decisions. Be it by electing the highest state authority, be it by petition for referendum followed by referendum or be it by a referendum following a decision by the government to put an issue to the people. Yet in most plebiscite forms of government the main decision-making process remains the duty of parliament. Plebiscitary decisions are usually reserved for issues of special national importance such as the introduction of a new currency (Euro) or membership to an international body with law-making powers. Switzerland is well known for its regular referendum. Representative government does not allow for referenda.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

(...) Another important difference can be made between parliamentary and the non-parliamentary democracies. Parliamentarianism should be understood as a dependency of government on the trust of the legislative rather than the existence of a functioning parliament. The system of government in the United States is the opposite of the parliamentary system. In his/her role as the head of state and the government, the US president does not depend on the trust of Congress; The House of Representatives and the Senate cannot force the president to resign from office.
The differences in the way in which these three basic types of democracy are realized makes it clear as to the degree to which systems can vary. Differing national traditions, the need to take into account varying social conditions and the way in which certain behavior is looked upon across the nations means that democracy in the modern world can appear in many forms. Given the fundamental premise that power is derived from the people (rather than from a privileged section, class or group of society), there are many ways in which democracy can be structured and achieved. Democracy, therefore, can be regarded as a special task for all peoples and at all times.

[Taken from Bertelsmann Discovery Lexikon 1997]

[Other materials: Quotes, illustration, types of democracy, difficult terms are defined in the glossary]

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

[Hans-Helmuth Knütter]

Why is it necessary to consider the issue of democracy today? Since 1945 there has been a steady spread of liberal western democracy both in Europe and across the world, which has replaced the alternative authoritarian forms of government. After the end of the Second World War and following the defeat of the Nazis and other fascist forms of government, it seemed as though democracy's crisis between the years 1922 and 1939 had been overcome; these years had been characterized by an increasing tendency for nations to reject democracy for other forms of government. Dictatorships in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay have all became democracies during the past few decades. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the "real socialist" systems in central and Eastern Europe in 1989, it seemed that victory for democracy was complete. Paradoxically, perhaps, it is this very development that demonstrates the importance of holding a critical debate on democracy. After all, these systems of government understand themselves as being "peoples" or "socialist democracies". Marxism-Leninism was the only ideological basis in these countries. This was substituted for a pluralistic system and the centrally controlled economy was replaced by a market economy. These developments have meant that the meaning of democracy, individual freedom and social security has become much clearer. Many people are finding it difficult to cope with the political and social changes taking place and to accept the new democratic system. And in this period of celebration over the apparent triumph of democracy, new dangers are arising and they should be taken seriously. The best way of doing this is to bear in mind democracy's long history of challenges and changes. Democracy is always in danger, since no other system is as dependent on common consent for its survival as democracy is.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

(...) Yet more than ignorance alone can cause alienation. A pretend and idealistic view of an harmonious and smooth-running democracy can be equally harmful, if the comparison between the ideal and reality only serves to damage the image of the ideal.
Democracy has become a part of history. Democracy's history is one of constant development that has brought it to its present form. An attempt will be made here to present the way in which democracy has developed and to make clear that democracy does not represent an ideal form of organizing the state and society, yet, following all the lessons that history has taught, democracy represents the only way of achieving a political and social system of government that is constitutionally based and humane.
Democracy is threatened less by dictatorship than by an ideological form of blind, mass hysteria. It is quite possible that democracy could be transformed into a reign of injustice based on a self-legitimizing ideology that is introduced using apparently democratic means. This danger was identified in Ancient Greece. Everyone is familiar with the term democracy. Taking a closer look at the word, however, causes difficulties. The word comes from Ancient Greek and means rule of the people, but this is not especially helpful since politics and society have changed a great deal since Ancient times and it is no longer clear what "rule of the people" actually means.
Democracy exists in a great number of forms. In Ancient Greece, democracy consisted of small and manageable administrative units belonging to the Polis "the people" (which at that time meant: Free men); these assemblies assembled to vote. In today's large nations there is a need for intermediate authorities. Elected representatives are necessary for power to be exercised in the name of the people - these representatives are subject to controls and may only hold office for a fixed term. There is a danger, however, that elected representatives (members of parliament and the political parties) might become too distant from their electorate. A situation could arise in which an elite group reigns over the people or, perhaps, even in the name of the people. This form of "people's democracy" existed in former East Germany and other former Eastern Block countries. In reality, however, the system used by these Eastern Block countries was rule by the party bureaucracy.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Democracy's basic problem is the tension created between individual freedoms and the responsibility of the individual to the whole (state or society). While freedom is restricted by the need to respect law and order, it is law and order that allows freedom to unfold. Freedom without responsibility would lead to jungle law. Democratic theory is based on the assumption that when a people rules over itself it is free - this is the opposite of rule by one individual or a group of individuals over their subjects. Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865, 16th president of America - 1861 to 1865) put this basic principle in his Gettysburg Address on 19 November 1863: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people..." Democracy's legitimization lies in the idea of sovereignty of the people. The term sovereignty to mean the source of all rights was developed by the French theorist on the state, Jean Bodin (1530 to 1596). In the old monarchical systems of government, the ruler, whose legitimization resided in the "divine right of kings" was sovereign; in a democracy the sovereign is the people in whose name rule is exercised and power transferred. Democracy is based on the rule of law rather than the rule of people over people. Laws have to be made and announced in a proper way; citizens have to be aware of them and able to follow them. Secret laws are forbidden. The term rule of law is closely connected to democracy.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Another of democracy's conditions is equality of all citizens. What equality means and just how far it can go without restricting freedoms is very contentious. Equality of everyone before the law is undisputed. Special laws and special courts applicable only to individual groups, sections of society or classes are forbidden. The constitutional state must ensure equality of opportunity, since freedom would be threatened should economic and social conditions be excessively unequal. Critics argue that any attempt to establish complete equality would go against and fail to respect the natural differences inherent among humanity and could only be achieved using undemocratic methods.
In a democracy power is exercised and transferred during general, equal, free, secret and direct elections for a limited period of time. An election is regarded as valid in a democracy only when it offers real alternatives. Simple confirmations or votes on just one issue with a simple yes or no answer are not regarded as being valid because a choice between differing alternatives does not exist. The freedom of speech, free information, protection of minorities and free opposition are all fundamental conditions of a democratic election.
All this means that democracy is situated somewhere between anarchic disintegration and dictatorial regimentation. To this end, democracy provides as much freedom as possible with as much law and order as necessary. Democracy lives on the citizens' understanding for binding rules. This understanding and consciousness among citizens in traditional and long-established democracies such as Great Britain and the US, but also Germany following the disastrous experiences under anti-democratic ideologies and systems of rule, can be fittingly described as a political culture.

[Taken from: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung: Demokratie, Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 165, Neudruck 1992]

[Other materials: Quotes, illustration, types of democracy, basic course 2: The development of democracy, difficult terms are defined in by the glossary]

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

(...) Regardless of the frequent use of the word democracy it remains unclear just how democracy should be understood today and just what its nature is. We are all certain that democracy has something to do with the freedom of individuals and government by the people, but we are uncertain as to how and whether such ideas about democracy can be realized today. Moreover, that which is passed off across the world as being democracy and democratic is far too ambiguous and full of contradiction. This confusion can be partially attributed to the fact that each interpreter uses definitions of democracy from differing historical periods and systems of society alongside each other and in an un-reflected way rather than distinguishing between the principle core of the democratic idea and its corresponding historic form.
(...) So what does this fine wording mean that democracy is rule by the people? Do the people, from whom all state power is derived according to the theory, actually have a real chance to make informed political decisions? Or alternatively, reminding ourselves of another (liberal) definition, does democracy today mean rule of public opinion; and bear in mind that this is supposed to be formed by a process of rational debate and discussion? Does reasoned discussion exist at all in today's democracy or is democracy driven more by emotional action and reaction?  And what is this public opinion from which politicians are supposed to take their lead. Is it the results of democracy or the opinions and comments made public and advocated by large associations, political parties and in newspapers, radio and television?

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

(...) Equal freedom for all citizens forms an inalienable demand on democracy. The scope of validity of today's classical definition of democracy can therefore be evaluated according to the degree to which each corresponding real form of democracy, subject to this definition, respects and makes possible equality of freedom for all citizens. Whether or not historical models of democracy can still be regarded as an example today, will have to be decided based on whether they have met these basic democratic values.
Democracy is based on a certain image of man. People should be free, that is, they should be able to develop and unfold according to their own wishes. The idea behind this - be it founded on Christian beliefs or humanistic ideological beliefs - is the belief that each and every person has his/her own dignity, which makes him/her human and separates him/her from the animals.
(...) Translated into the political sphere this means that the indefeasible dignity of each and every individual marks out the limits of all power and rule. Power must, in principle, be subjected to limitations and control, and it must be founded on the agreement of those subjected to it, since unlimited freedom to encroach upon the individual would represent violation and incapacitation of the individual's dignity and freedom. Indeed all power, in particular state power, exists to serve one aim, namely: To secure and increase for each and every member of the society the possibilities and chances for a free and humane life.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Freedom, therefore, is not abstract but a concrete freedom to organize one's life as well as the freedom of religion and conscience. Freedom to choose a career, the freedom to organize one's private life, free control over one's personal property, freedom and inviolability of the home and freedom of correspondence and communication over telephone. Freedom also means protection against random imprisonment and the guarantee of a constitutional hearing before a court of law; it also means having the right to control the information that the state collects on individual citizens.
(...) Freedoms also include the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to association and to form unions, the right to equal participation in the process of forming political opinion in the respective communities. All these rights to freedoms, which are not listed in full here, have to apply when forming any political system. At the core of these freedoms is human dignity. Human dignity is not given by the state from its own generosity but is recognized by the state as being pre-given and guaranteed as well as inviolable and inalienable. These rights must be secured and form the purpose of all democratic constitutions.
Of course, it must also be taken into account that these individual freedoms cannot be definitively set down in law. The freedoms of others define the limitations of individual freedom. 

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

(...) The nature of democracy is only conceivable from this image of man. A society can be regarded as being democratic when, while recognizing the dignity of man, the state's ultimate value is aimed at guaranteeing all citizens the right to equal freedom in developing their personality and the right to organize their lives in a responsible way while creating the social conditions necessary for this.
Therefore, democracy is more than the sum of formal procedures and laws. It is determined from its inner goal, that is, while taking into account the respective historic and social conditions to provide and realize the greatest amount of freedom, self-responsibility and social justice.
(...) Democracy assumes agreement on the values that cannot be made subject to a vote; only when these unanimous conditions on joint values have been met can the principle of majority rule be introduced to structure everyday political life. To this end, democracy is a value-bound political system whose aim is the realization of values rather than a system based on neutral rules of procedure.

[Taken from: Waldemar Besson/Gotthard Jasper, Das Leitbild der modernen Demokratie. Bauelemente einer freiheitlichen Staatsordnung, Bonn 1990]

[Back to top of page]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods