Definition of Democracy

[PointsOfLight]

I've been trying to write a paper on what I believe the definition of democracy is for one of my classes. It's actually pretty difficult (for me anyway) to accept just one definition of the word.

What do you think a true democracy is?
and...
Do you think there as been a perfect example of a true democracy in action in the course of human history, i.e., the Greeks, the U.S etc.
Can or will a true democracy ever occur? Should it?

Just wondering what you all think...

I can tell you what it is not.
It is not the US.
We are not a democracy, never have been and I hope we never are.
We are a Constitutional Republic.
Long Live The Republic!
A democracy is mob rule.
"Two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner".

[PointsOfLight]

Yeah, I've never thought the U.S was an example. Some people in my class are under that belief. But me and most of my peers are coming straight out of high school, and high school history classes pretty much teach kids that the U.S was founded with democracy in mind.

Is this true?

No. Not at all.
The ideal was always the Republic.

[DanaC]

I think our conception of the term 'democracy' has shifted somewhat over the last hundred years or so. Rather than meaning mob-rule, it now has connotations simply of increased participation in the governance of the Nation. Republic and democracy have become more or less interchangeable, because Democracy is one of the ways in which Republic can be sought, and Republics have at their core a system of participatory governance which is democratic in nature: every citizen gets to vote in local and national elections, but every governmental decision is not put to the vote.

From Tom Paine's Rights of Man:

The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

[TheMercenary]

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...ts/demrep.html

[xoxoxoBruce]

From Merc's link....

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

The Republic being much more gooder, but does become a pain in the ass, sometimes.

[Ibby]

Is there (hypothetically, not necessarily actually happening) a such thing as a non-representative (direct) republic? A republic where the rights of the minorities are protected, the power of the majority limited - but the people directly vote and decide their fates, rather than using elected representatives?

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Is there (hypothetically, not necessarily actually happening) a such thing as a non-representative (direct) republic? A republic where the rights of the minorities are protected, the power of the majority limited - but the people directly vote and decide their fates, rather than using elected representatives?

Some Swiss Cantons have regular (maybe quarterly) mass meetings where the enfranchised population all get together and have a show of hands on various issues. They still have representatives though.
Matter of fact I think I saw this in an IOTD a while back.
The Athenians, Spartans and many small ancient Greek city-states had a similar system: a big mass assembly that met occasionally, a small council that met regularly, and usually a designated war leader.
Try reading Herodotus or Plutarch for examples, if you have time.
Hope this helps.

PS Plato's "Republic" has a poorly translated title. "Raes Publica" should be "On the Constitution".

[Ibby]

however, the greek democracy did NOT protect minority rights.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

however, the greek democracy did NOT protect minority rights.

What in the American system of democracy protects minority rights. Whereas we do pass laws to protect minoriites, where does our election process and Constitution specifically protect minorities from the will of the majority? We have laws that do this but where does the 'democratic system' protect minorities?

[Undertoad]

The rights granted in the Constitution apply to all.

[Ibby]

the bill of rights? especially the first.

The very structure of the american system is meant to keep the majority from imposing their will on the minority.
Whether or not it's entirely successful... is another matter

[Aliantha]

Just because you have the bill of rights and a constitution does not mean that your minorities are any better protected than minority groups in countries like Australia or the UK.

I don't see where minorities are more opressed in Australia than they are in the US for example.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Ibram

however, the greek democracy did NOT protect minority rights.

I thought I had replied to this but it isn't here... hmmm

To retype:

Touche'. Maybe you could have a look at the swiss system then.

Although, non-voters generally had some rights in most Greek cities. Even slaves had certain protections.

But, "minorities"? Once you subtract women, children, slaves, resident foreigners, paupers, and others banned for various reasons, the voting citizens were a minority, often 10 to 20 %. And boy they protected their rights quite well thank you.
I know you don't mean "any group less than 50% of the population". Maybe you're talking about protecting the disadvantaged? the disenfranchised? the vulnerable?

Don't expect to solve any of these issues in a single paper. I did a PhD in philosophy and have watched colleagues wrestle with them for years.