Counting the Many (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Counting the Many (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Counting the Many (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy) book. Happy reading Counting the Many (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Counting the Many (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Counting the Many (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy) Pocket Guide.

The epistemic democratization of global governance could not occur in a predefined and logical sequence of steps. Efforts to infuse global governance with epistemic-democratic qualities will only ever be piecemeal. Processes of decision-making vary across international institutions with some emphasizing negotiation and bargaining, others deliberation and consensus, and others equal or weighted voting. The quality of each of these processes could be enhanced by maximizing inclusivity, diversity, and competence.

Before elaborating on principles for the epistemic democratization of global governance, it is worth addressing two plausible counterarguments. The skeptical reader may question whether my theoretical assumptions can be reconciled with the realities of world politics. I see two major concerns. First, epistemic democracy is an exercise in depoliticization or domination: aspiring to solve problems through inclusion and diversity requires ignoring the pervasiveness of real political conflict in the international system.

In the real world, actors disagree on the very nature of problems as well as desired outcomes. Political theorists concerned about deep disagreement generally point to its cultural provenance MacIntyre Cultural variety may be an ontological fact in the international system, but we should not exaggerate the extent of deep differences relative to shared presuppositions Kukathas , Cosmopolitan scholars have assembled legal, philosophical, and anthropological evidence to support claims that political and cultural communities are already and increasingly cosmopolitan to some degree Brown ; Glenn We should therefore treat the potential for deep moral disagreement to occasionally foreclose political debate as very real, but not pervasive.

People of different traditions and moral systems have often found ways to coexist. It is possible to make good decisions in the face of difference and conflict. This is as true at the international level as it is at the national level. Fred may firmly believe that child labor should be prohibited but may revise this judgment if, say, he was shown evidence of a positive correlation between child labor and school enrollment.

The precise balance between basic and nonbasic disagreements in global governance remains an open question. Contemporary theorists of epistemic democracy assume that nonbasic disagreements are more common, even in heterogeneous polities like the United States Landemore b , —5. Similarly, we can proceed under the assumption that most of the disagreements that occupy the time and attention of global political institutions are of a nonbasic kind. Such conflicts are not intractable. Epistemic democracy would be valuable even if it could only work in such circumstances.

But it can also accommodate basic disagreements, perhaps more so than the nation-state—because global politics lacks a supreme authority. For most global problems, no single political institution enjoys an exclusive governance mandate. Multiple public and private institutions govern most global problems health, development, environment, etc.

If actors deeply disagree with the way an issue is problematized in one institution, they are often free to create parallel institutions. Such governance experiments are compatible with the aims of epistemic democracy. The skeptical reader might also question whether the experience of multilateral negotiations negates any possibility of international epistemic democracy. Many negotiation analysts hold that the difficulty of reaching agreement increases with the size and diversity of the group Hampson and Hart , Young , —21 and Hopmann , 24 suggest that scholars and practitioners have been socialized into a realist paradigm of negotiation, in which distributive bargaining over fixed payoffs is all that occurs.

This mode of negotiation is not just a theoretical possibility; many regimes were formed in such a way Young , — It is certainly plausible that numbers and diversity can enrich integrative bargaining while posing challenges for distributive bargaining, but this remains uncertain. The available evidence on the impact of numbers and diversity on multilateral negotiations remains inconclusive. In exploring the impact of diversity and other variables on multilateral negotiations, Narlikar , —66 and her colleagues found its effects difficult to distinguish from those of power.

The precise impact of diversity remained a question for further research. When diversity was clearly isolated as a distinct cause of deadlock, it tended to affect trust among parties rather than their zone of possible agreement. Mistrust presents a significant challenge, but we can partly mitigate this through informal processes and institutional mechanisms Narlikar , 12—13, Studies of local-level common pool resource governance offer reason for greater optimism about the potential for large-group decision-making. Some IR scholars find the local commons a comparable context to the international system because in many cases poor, weakly governed countries , the local level is effectively anarchical Keohane and Ostrom , 1.

A recurring finding is that the size of the group matters less for reaching a decision than issue-specific factors discount rates , institutional factors transaction costs , and communicative factors common understanding of interests Keohane and Ostrom , 1; Ostrom , — The impact of heterogeneity remains contested and inconclusive Ruttan , — But it is clear that heterogeneity does not consistently or inevitably impede decision-making in large groups.

Sometimes heterogeneity facilitates decision-making by presenting more positive-sum options Keohane and Ostrom , 9— Increasing the number and diversity of actors involved in deliberation and decision-making increases the complexity of the process, and the time it takes to reach agreement. But slow and complex processes are often the only way to effectively respond to problems Buzan , Admittedly, I present epistemic democracy as an approach for better decisions in global governance, not faster ones. Having established that global governance is not beyond the scope of epistemic democracy, below I construct an epistemic-democratic framework for evaluating global governance.

Epistemic democracy is a broad church with diverse understandings about popular competence, cognitive independence, and the nature of truth. I identified the most robust and convincing positions on each of these questions above. On that basis, I construct a framework comprising three principles. The likelihood of making correct decisions is increased if arrangements for global governance:. I apply this framework below with the aim of showing what epistemic democratization might look like at the global level.

My aim is not to present a comprehensive evaluation of global governance. That would require selecting a specific domain of global governance for example migration or finance ; identifying the relevant public and private institutions; and measuring their performance on each principle. My aims are more modest. This exploratory evaluation reveals where epistemic-democratic deficits might lie, and what processes might mitigate such deficits. Epistemic democratic theory holds that the more competent, diverse, and numerous the decision-makers, the greater the likelihood of reaching the right decision.

It is thus imperative to reduce levels of ignorance and deprivation that weaken capacity to contribute to debate and decision-making. This is a problem for the global North and South alike. Most public opinion research is limited to the North, where studies reveal widespread ignorance of social issues.

For instance, citizens in the North overestimate levels of immigration and unemployment, and underestimate democratic participation Ipsos MORI While support for international development assistance is high among OECD countries, awareness of issues and governmental support is very shallow.

Awareness of international affairs is higher in Europe than in the United States. This is attributed to the fact that public broadcasters provide more international news coverage than commercial broadcasters, and these are much more prominent in Europe than in the United States Iyengar et al. Access to good-quality education and exposure to accurate and diverse sources of information is needed to mitigate ignorance.

But more fundamental deprivations often undermine capacity for participation. The capacity to form reflected subjective judgments is constrained by unmet basic needs that inhibit opportunities for reflection and deliberation. The record of global institutions in addressing such deprivations remains inadequate. Since the early s, a human development paradigm has governed global efforts to address basic needs. This reflects a shift away from a growth-centric economic development paradigm in which GDP growth is sufficient for reducing poverty.

National reports soon followed and have now been produced in about countries UNDP n. Reporting on such indicators as illiteracy, level of education, life expectancy, and gender inequality allows comparison of human development trends over time. Quantitative indicators have limitations, but they are a significant improvement on earlier practices of reporting exclusively on GDP. But more than 2. The Millennium Development Goals further institutionalized a multidimensional needs and capability-based understanding of poverty UNGA While some goals were reached, the living conditions of millions of people remain grim.

The goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty was achieved, thereby improving the plight of some million people globally. By , million people had moved from urban slums into sanitary and durable housing.

Most countries met the goal of halving the percentage of chronically undernourished people, yet this still leaves some million people living in hunger UN , 4. But the quality of education is parlous in many places and, as a result, many children remain illiterate UN Perhaps the clearest indication of deficit on this principle of epistemic democracy is the fact that net aid disbursements from the North to South have dropped in recent and consecutive years. Deprivation and poverty marginalize many people from debates about international affairs. Global institutions are increasingly opening up to civil society, but as I show below pp.

Ultimately, redoubling efforts to enhance human development, as well as exposure to accurate and diverse information on social issues and international affairs, is necessary to enhance capacity for participation, and thereby enhance the epistemic-democratic quality of global governance.

The new Sustainable Development Goals offer reasons for optimism. At first glance, the international system is remarkably diverse: the United Nations General Assembly has member-states reflecting many different languages, cultures, histories, and stages and styles of development. These states have established numerous specialized agencies and institutions to address common problems ranging from trade and terrorism to food security and financial stability.

Alongside this multilateral system is a patchwork of complementary and competitive minilateral clubs, and private institutions that shape international responses to particular issues. If epistemic democracy thrives on diversity and large numbers, global governance seemingly provides ideal conditions. But this picture of diversity is unsettled by considering two cases that expose hidden homogeneity within ostensibly diverse institutions.

The epistemic democratization of global governance requires identifying factors that limit diversity and obscure homogeneity. Multilateral negotiations involve a greater number of participants than perhaps any other decision-making process at the international level. But even when many states are involved in deliberations and decision-making, cognitive diversity can be diminished by hegemonic discourses. The only source of contestation comes from outside multilateral institutions.

Empirical analysis of negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reveals a similar picture. Stevenson and Dryzek assessed the legitimacy of climate negotiations by gauging the extent to which deliberations reflected broader public debate. These findings on discursive representation also yield valuable insights for epistemic concerns about diversity. While there is no hegemonic discourse on climate change, limited discursive diversity is reflected in negotiations Stevenson and Dryzek , 77— Annual climate negotiations attract the participation of nearly countries and up to 15, government delegates.

These actors frequently disagree about precise targets, mechanisms, and institutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change. But their points of disagreement obscure a high degree of homogeneity in the way in which they perceive and problematize climate change. Only the first two are well reflected in climate negotiations. Most parties assume that climate change action can be defined within the parameters of the existing liberal capitalist system; that the drive to compete and accumulate material goods and wealth is an inherent aspect of human nature and relations; that low-carbon capitalism is a viable option by decoupling pollution and profit; and that goals of economic growth and ecological sustainability are compatible given appropriate markets or regulation Stevenson and Dryzek , 61— Some parties pair these economic-reformist ideas with politically progressive ideals about North—South equality and equitable burden sharing, but they couch these concerns in narrow state-centric terms that erase many judgments found in public debates about climate change.

Questions frequently raised in public debates about the viability of industrial-scale development, exponential economic growth and unconstrained population growth, and the efficacy of market-based governance mechanisms are absent in UN climate negotiations Stevenson and Dryzek , 79— If increasing the number of parties involved in multilateral negotiations is insufficient for maximizing diversity, how can we improve diversity?

The positions advanced in negotiations develop on two fronts: at home involving the foreign policymaking community and at the table involving negotiators, chairpersons, and sometimes secretariats. This is one site to target diversification by seeking to maximize the life experiences and social positions that are represented.

The party delegates and negotiators then tasked with crafting an international agreement present another diversification target. Governments typically grant delegates some flexibility in their mandates to account for uncertainty. This provides some scope for creativity in the negotiation process. Chairpersons in turn play a role in ensuring that no single bloc or perspective dominates the deliberations Stevenson and Dryzek , 71— Finally, the bureaucratic staff attached to convention secretariats or international organizations like the WTO play a part in shaping how party positions and overall agreements develop Jinnah We have limited knowledge of cognitive diversity at these other levels of global institutions.

However, in the context of international bureaucracies, studies of the International Monetary Fund IMF offer insights into the nature, causes, and consequences of epistemic homogeneity. While sometimes dismissed by IR scholars as epiphenomenal, international bureaucracies are one necessary site for internal cognitive diversification.

They affect decision-making through organizing information, rationalizing complex issues, applying specialized knowledge, facilitating negotiation, and building capacity Barnett and Finnemore , 1— Epistemic homogeneity compromises the performance of each of these functions, but in the IMF a narrow merit-based recruitment strategy produces such homogeneity.

The result was an overwhelmingly high proportion of male staff with doctoral degrees from North American universities. No staff members were trained outside an industrialized country. IMF staff themselves recognize the extent and consequences of homogeneity. Some complain that innovation, flexibility, and risk-taking are discouraged; others describe the culture as technical, economistic, homogeneous, and conforming IMF , 32; IEO , 49; Momani , 46— Injecting diverse wisdom into international bureaucracies requires modifying the incentive structures that promote candor or silence IEO , 1 , as well as deliberate recruitment strategies.

In the IMF, Momani recommends recruiting more staff from the South; mid-career officials with policy experience and alternative organizational cultures; and social science graduates 52— There are multiple avenues for enhancing cognitive diversity in global institutions. Epistemic democratization is a slow and piecemeal process that we can advance by diversifying global governors in multiple settings.

This section focused on state-based processes and institutions, but private governance networks and exclusive minilateral clubs are also susceptible to intellectual capture and insularity Stevenson and Dryzek , 82— Internal diversification strategies may improve the cognitive diversity of global institutions, but epistemic democratization of global governance also requires attention to the external environment of global institutions.

I examine the quality of existing engagement in the following section. The right decisions would likely emerge when inclusivity, diversity, and competence are maximized in global decision-making. Right decisions are those that most effectively resolve problems with the fewest unintended negative consequences. Anticipating potential problems and crafting alternative responses requires pooling experiences, insights, and objective and subjective knowledge. Civil society organizations can help tap into such diverse wisdom. Civil society is defined as the voluntary associations that form a part of society distinct from states and markets: NGOs, trade unions, religious groups, professional and business associations, media, and social movements Edwards , The former is excluded from civil society, but the latter is included.

Analysis of civil society participation in thirty-two European and global institutions shows that almost all institutions involve consultation; half operate a scheme for selecting and accrediting civil society organizations to allow them access to certain meetings usually with the right to speak and distribute materials , and over half have arrangements for outreach and liaison meetings Steffek and Nanz , 19— Recent analysis confirmed a general trend toward more openness over the past sixty years, and particularly after Tallberg et al.

To some degree, this opening is in response to legitimacy demands of civil society and stronger democratic norms within states. But it probably owes more to the perceived functional benefits of involving transnational non-state actors, such as tapping into expertise and services Tallberg et al. Although international organizations are opening up, concerns remain about the quality and impact of civil society inclusion. Generally, civil society is consulted at the policy formation stage, excluded from decision-making, and included again in policy implementation Tallberg et al.

From an epistemic-democratic perspective, this staggered participation is not necessarily problematic—provided that the shared perspectives are reflected upon and taken into account during decision-making. Problems arise when only certain voices are heard, and when consultation is not meaningfully connected to decision-making. An effect of massive global inequalities is that many voices are not heard inside political institutions. Studies on environmental and trade negotiations confirm that access to international organizations is largely reserved for well-resourced civil society organizations from the North Piewitt , ; Urhe , 9; Hanegraaff et al.

But this does not reveal the full extent of dominance and exclusion. Inequalities also have societal and sectoral dimensions, affecting which voices are heard. Highton , argues that knowledge is a resource whose distribution is skewed toward white, well-educated, and financially secure men. Wealthy and highly educated citizens in the North and South are more aware of the profiles and activities of international bodies like the UN Security Council Dellmuth Forthcoming.

This knowledge advantage is often coupled with a resource advantage that allows these groups to seize opportunities for participation.

Melissa Schwartzberg

Unsurprisingly, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups for example women, poor, and non-white people are less likely to engage with international political processes Uhre , , The epistemic quality of decision-making is undermined to the extent that their perspectives are unexpressed in deliberations leading to decisions. It is also widely observed that among non-state actors, business interests enjoy relatively privileged access to global institutions. But the pattern of dominance is nuanced. Business dominance is more pronounced in trade negotiations than environmental ones.

In climate change and biodiversity institutions, environmental civil society organizations have secured stronger or more balanced representation Uhre , The strength of business interests in civil society masks its own inequalities: business associations in the South are limited or weak, and are far less likely to participate in global institutions than other advocacy groups Piewitt ; while in the North, small businesses, cooperatives, and social enterprises are far weaker in their political representation than large corporations.

Even if we could eliminate inequalities, we would still face logistical challenges of tapping into the knowledge of large numbers of widely dispersed people. Universal direct participation is impossible. Opportunities for sharing knowledge need to be structured in ways that better connect broader publics with a more limited number of actors who have direct institutional access. Decisions taken in international institutions can have impacts at local and national levels that neither decision-makers nor affected people anticipate.

Engaged civil society organizations have a role to play in bridging this epistemic and spatial divide by promoting and informing public debate at local and national levels and transmitting knowledge and experience from these levels to global institutions. More heads are better than one, but we can only apply this edict in the global context if we think creatively about how to apply the minds of the many to distant decisions.

International efforts to control disease epidemics illustrate the importance of connective broader publics to decision-making institutions. Dominant modes of epidemic governance emphasize certain framings of the problem and privilege certain forms of knowledge. Leach et al. Outbreaks in Congo have been securitized, with neighboring countries closing borders and placing police and military on high alert.

Alternative narratives on Ebola exist among NGOs and local communities and may lead to alternative—and potentially more effective—responses. This draws attention, for example, to the relationship between deforestation and vulnerability to hemorrhagic fevers through closer contact with forest animal reservoirs. A local narrative interprets Ebola as endemic and emphasizes the various control and response mechanisms that have existed for years and can be integrated into larger-scale international responses Leach et al.

Civil society organizations with access to international institutions have a role to play in communicating with national and local citizen groups to promote debate or tap into existing debates and practices at national and local levels. This is required to ensure that they are cognizant of alternative narratives and knowledge claims. These debates and practices may occur with some degree of ignorance of global processes and narratives. A remaining challenge for epistemic democratization is to make public access politically consequential.

We should not applaud expanded opportunities for sharing knowledge if these have no impact on decisions. Cases of inconsequential or purely symbolic civil society engagement could probably be documented across all global issues.

  • Cinderella: A BDSM Retelling.
  • Areas of Research/Interest.
  • Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy: Democracy and the Rule of Law Series Number 5!
  • Les Écorchés dans le temps (French Edition)!
  • Melissa Schwartzberg - Overview | NYU School of Law!
  • Publications.
  • Jürgen Habermas;

In response to civil society protests, the WTO has sought to make its processes more transparent and facilitate more public access. Civil society is still banned from negotiating sessions, and while they can observe plenary sessions, they cannot make oral or written submissions. Opportunities for sharing knowledge are largely limited to pre-conference dialogues between WTO committee staff and civil society. At best they are ineffective, at worst merely tokenistic.

Inconsequential public engagement is yet one more sign of the epistemic-democratic deficit of global governance. A growing body of literature at the intersection of International Relations and democratic theory sensitizes us to moral reasons for taking global democracy seriously.

It argues that, if people are affected by supranational decisions, then they deserve the opportunity to interact with or influence those decision-making processes. This provides a persuasive, but incomplete, justification for enhancing participation in global governance. In this article, I sought to bolster the case for global democracy by developing an instrumentalist justification for maximizing inclusivity and diversity in global governance. The complexity and scale of problems facing the international community strain the capacity of states and global institutions to effectively respond.

Of course, democracy should not be reserved only for particularly challenging and complex problems. It is in such contexts that the perils of groupthink and exclusion become particularly apparent. But for too long this statement has simply underscored the importance of states cooperating through multilateral institutions. Others look to governance networks of businesses, states, and occasionally non-governmental organizations Hoffman But effective global governance is unlikely to emerge from these institutions unless they are able to better harness diverse knowledge and judgments that lie beyond them.

Global democracy scholars and activists must devise and demand processes and mechanisms that better connect global governors with the wisdom of the many. This article provided a justification for taking this agenda forward, and a framework for identifying epistemic deficits in existing global governance.

Drawing on historical and contemporary debates about epistemic democracy, I distilled three principles that constitute an epistemic-democratic framework for evaluating global governance. These principles are not inextricable parts of a single democratizing process. James Madison critiqued direct democracy which he referred to simply as "democracy" in Federalist No. More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability.

As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the popular media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priorities.

This opportunist alliance not only has the handicap of having to cater to too many ideologically opposing factions, but it is usually short lived since any perceived or actual imbalance in the treatment of coalition partners, or changes to leadership in the coalition partners themselves, can very easily result in the coalition partner withdrawing its support from the government.

Biased media has been accused of causing political instability, resulting in the obstruction of democracy, rather than its promotion. In representative democracies, it may not benefit incumbents to conduct fair elections. A study showed that incumbents who rig elections stay in office 2. Sub-Saharan countries, as well as Afghanistan, all tend to fall into that category.

Governments that have frequent elections tend to have significantly more stable economic policies than those governments who have infrequent elections. However, this trend does not apply to governments where fraudulent elections are common. 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 within a non-democratic state is typically brought about by democratic revolution.

Post-Enlightenment ideologies such as fascism , nazism , communism and neo-fundamentalism oppose democracy on different grounds, generally citing that the concept of democracy as a constant process is flawed and detrimental to a preferable course of development. 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. 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. Carroll Quigley concludes that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy: [] [] Democracy—this scenario—tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to obtain and use. Governments couldn't do any better: it became the age of mass armies of citizen soldiers with guns. 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: [] [ need quotation to verify ] [] []. 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. 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 plow the land. This made Africa less settled. As a consequence, political power was less concentrated. 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. 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 [ quantify ] places this process lead to democracy. These determinants defined the structure of the society moving the balance of political power.

In the 21st century, democracy has become such a popular method of reaching decisions that its application beyond politics to other areas such as entertainment, food and fashion, consumerism, urban planning, education, art, literature, science and theology has been criticised as "the reigning dogma of our time". In education, the argument is that essential but more difficult studies are not undertaken. Science, as a truth -based discipline, is particularly corrupted by the idea that the correct conclusion can be arrived at by popular vote.

However, more recently, theorists [ which? 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 death-bed, 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. Harald Wydra , in his book Communism and The Emergence of Democracy , maintains that the development of democracy should not be viewed as a purely procedural or as a static concept but rather as an ongoing "process of meaning formation". Democratic political figures are not supreme rulers but rather temporary guardians of an empty place.

Any claim to substance such as the collective good , the public interest or the will of the nation is subject to the competitive struggle and times of for [ clarification needed ] gaining the authority of office and government. The essence of the democratic system is an empty place, void of real people, which can only be temporarily filled and never be appropriated.

The seat of power is there, but remains open to constant change. As such, people's definitions of "democracy" or of "democratic" progress throughout history as a continual and potentially never ending process of social construction. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is the latest accepted revision , reviewed on 28 June For a democracy that protects the rights of individuals, see Liberal democracy. For other uses, see Democracy disambiguation and Democrat disambiguation. Primary topics. Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy.

Political systems. Academic disciplines. Political science political scientists. International relations theory. Public administration. Bureaucracy street-level Adhocracy. Public policy doctrine Domestic and foreign policy Civil society Public interest. Organs of government. Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Election commission.

Related topics. Sovereignty Theories of political behavior Political psychology Biology and political orientation Political organisations Foreign electoral intervention. Most democratic closest to Least democratic closest to 0. Main article: History of democracy. See also: Athenian democracy. Main article: Types of democracy. World's states coloured by form of government 1. Main article: Direct democracy. Main article: Representative democracy. Main article: Parliamentary system. Main article: Presidential system.

See also: Politics of Switzerland and Voting in Switzerland. Main article: Constitutional monarchy. Main article: Republicanism. Main article: Liberal democracy. See also: Democracy in Marxism. Main article: Sortition. Main article: Consociational democracy. Main article: Consensus democracy. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. Dagenhart History of youth rights in the United States Morse v. Adam Fletcher activist David J. Males Neil Postman Sonia Yaco.

Main article: Inclusive democracy. Main article: Participatory politics. Main article: Cosmopolitan democracy. Main article: Creative democracy. Main article: Guided democracy. Main article: Criticism of democracy.

  • Top Authors;
  • Democracy against the odds;
  • Bestselling Series;

Main article: Anti-democratic thought. Main article: Democratization. Politics portal. William Benton. Retrieved 5 July Google Books. Democracy and the Market. Cambridge University Press. In Diamond, L. London: Routledge. Politics and Governance. Encyclopedia of ancient Greece. New York: Routledge. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. Putnam's Sons. Retrieved 17 February The Economist. Economist Group. The democracy sourcebook. Public space and democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Scandinavian Political Studies. Full text. BBC News. UK Parliament. Retrieved 18 August ; "Independence". Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Retrieved 9 November The New Indian Express. Express Publications Madurai Limited. Retrieved 18 August Women and human development: the capabilities approach. II, ch. The end of kings: a history of republics and republicans 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Online Etymology Dictionary. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, and Bonnie G. Martin's, , Uchitel' Publishing House. Retrieved 1 March Retrieved 28 September Retrieved 22 August The Hindu.

Chennai, India. The British Library. Retrieved 28 January Magna Carta is sometimes regarded as the foundation of democracy in England. Revised versions of Magna Carta were issued by King Henry III in , and , and the text of the version was entered onto the statute roll in The 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 , to approve the granting of taxation.

The National Archives. Retrieved 17 November The Telegraph. The Society of Antiquaries of London. Retrieved 16 October Retrieved 7 April Retrieved 22 December British Library. Retrieved 27 November The key landmark is the Bill of Rights , which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown Department of State. Archived from the original on 24 October Retrieved 30 October 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 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 and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in Democracy in America. The ungovernable rock: a history of the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom and its role in Britain's Mediterranean strategy during the Revolutionary War, — London: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Colonial Williamsburg. Spring Retrieved 21 April Michael The Historical Foundations of World Order. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom. National Archives. Archived from the original on 6 July London and New York: Routledge.

Jürgen Habermas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Archived from the original on 27 August Culture in the Age of Three Worlds. Retrieved 10 July Transformations in slavery: a history of slavery in Africa 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 26 September Indiana University Northwest. Archived from the original on 14 July The New York Times. Retrieved 25 January Retrieved 16 May Journal of Democracy. Archived from the original on 7 September Retrieved 7 September Constitutionalism and political reconstruction. University of Cambridge. Retrieved 16 December Archived from the original on 13 July The International Journal of Human Rights.

Retrieved 21 January Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 14 November Retrieved 25 October University of Connecticut. Economist Intelligence Unit. Retrieved 24 March Citizen Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality". The scientific limits of understanding the potential relationship between complex social phenomena: the case of democracy and inequality.

Journal of Economic Methodology. Gaus, C. Preuss, "Perspectives of Democracy and the Rule of Law. In Clarke, Paul A. Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Principles of Representative Government. The Workings of Zapatista Government. Archived from the original on 3 February The Crisis of Representative Democracy.

Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Book 4. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, New York: Prentice Hall, New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, Essentials of Comparative Politics. New York: W. Norton Archived from the original PDF on 9 October Retrieved 7 August Archived from the original on 17 January July Archived from the original on 5 August Retrieved 12 October The Political Potential of Sortition: A study of the random selection of citizens for public office.

Imprint Academic. Archived from the original PDF on 25 July Retrieved 2 July By Archie Brown. Downloaded 28 April By Peter Reddaway. Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved 21 June Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 14 March Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper Perennial. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper Collins College. Democracy and its Critics.

New Haven: Yale University Press. Is Democracy Possible Here? Princeton: Princeton University Press. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press. A Perspective from the Rise of Modern China". UN Chronicle. Retrieved 24 January Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quoting Raymond Lonergan. Publishers Weekly. Retrieved 1 April Blackwell Publishing, Washington Post.

American Political Science Review. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Weapons systems and political stability: a history. University Press of America. Retrieved 20 May Journal of Economic Growth. Retrieved 3 July Psychological Science. Political theory has described a positive linkage between education, cognitive ability and democracy.

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. Comparative Politics. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. American Economic Review. Handbook of Economic Growth. Working Paper. The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 30 December Retrieved 17 September Political Parties. Transaction Publishers. Retrieved 5 June Communism and the Emergence of Democracy. Retrieved 11 August This article's further reading may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.

Please improve this article by removing less relevant or redundant publications with the same point of view ; or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations. January Learn how and when to remove this template message. Abbott, Lewis. British Democracy: Its Restoration and Extension.

Appleby, Joyce. Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Harvard University Press. Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, — Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Birch, Anthony H. The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. The Idea of Democracy. America's Bible of Democracy: Returning to the Constitution.


SterlingHouse Publisher, Inc. Yale University Press. On Democracy. The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press. A Preface to Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press. State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. The Global Resurgence of Democracy. Johns Hopkins University Press. Political Parties and Democracy. JHU Press.

Assessing the Quality of Democracy. World Religions and Democracy. Islam and Democracy in the Middle East. Deliberative Democracy. Fuller, Roslyn United Kingdom: Zed Books. Gabardi, Wayne. Contemporary Models of Democracy. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. Democracy and Disagreement. The future of democracy. London: Headley Bros. Publishers Ltd.

Halperin, M. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford: Blackwell. Models of Democracy.