It is she a government regime where the power to take important political decisions is with the citizens (people). To use a famous sentence, democracy he/she is the " government of the people for the people ". Democracy is opposed to the dictatorship forms and totalitarianism, where the power resides in a solemnity-chosen elite.
Democracies can be divided in different types, based on a number of distinctions. The most important distinction happens among direct democracy (sometimes called " pure " democracy), where the expressed people its will for direct vote in each private subject, and the representative democracy (sometimes called " indirect " democracy), where the expressed people its will through the representatives' election that you/they make decisions on behalf of those that chose them.
Other important items in the democracy include exactly who is " the People ", that is, who will be entitled to the vote; as to protect the rights of minorities against the " tyranny of most " and which system should be used for the representatives' election or other executives.
Alternative definition of ' Democracy '
There is other democracy definition besides described her above, although it is less used. In agreement with that definition, the word democracy only refers to the direct, while representative regime it is known as republic.
The first origins of this definition can be found in Aristotle's work that distingüiu, in its book Politics, six government forms, be, for few or many, and if the administration was just or unjust. He called demokratia (democracy) an unjust government governed by many, and a just system governed by many called politeia, usually translated as republic (of the Latin cattles it publishes, ' public thing '). Aristotle's demokratia arrived close to than today can call direct democracy, and politeia he/she approached than we can call representative democracy, although the demokratia still has chosen executives.
The words " democracy " and " republic " were used in a similar way Aristótoles for some of founders United States. They argued that only a representative democracy (for itself call ' republic ') it could protect the individuals' right; they used the word ' democracy ' to refer to the direct considered tyrannical.
Nor Aristotle's definition nor the one of the first American administrators is usually used now--most of the political cientists today (and still more than the people in general) it uses the term " democracy " to refer to a government for the people, be direct or representative. Republic " is usually said meaning a political system where a state boss is chosen by a limited time, opposite of a constitutional monarchy.
However, the oldest terms are still used sometimes in discussions of political theory, especially considering Aristotle's work or of the " Parents American Founders ". That old terminology also has some popularity among conservative politicians and you liberate in United States.
Among other definitions, it can be affirmed in that article, that democracy includes the direct and insinuation.
Direct democracy refers to the system where the citizens decide each subject directly for voting. In representative democracies, in contrast, the citizens choose representatives in regular intervals, that then vote the subjects in its favor.
The direct democracy became more and more difficult, and he/she necessarily approaches more of the representative democracy, when the number of citizens grows. Historically, the most direct democracies include the municipal encounter of New England (inside of United States), and the old political system of Athens. None of these if enquadraria well for a great population (although the population of Athens was big, most of the population was not composed of people considered as citizens, that, therefore, she was not entitled political; they didn't have them women, slaves and children).
It is questionable if there was already some day a democracy purely direct of any considerable size. In the practice, societies of any complexity always needs a specialization of tasks, besides of the administrative ones; and therefore a direct democracy needs chosen officials. (Although somebody can try to maintain all the important decisions done by direct vote, with the officials merely implementing those decisions).
In the same way, many modern representative democracies incorporate some elements of the direct democracy, it usually countersigns.
We can see direct and indirect democracies as the ideal types, with the real democracies if approaching one of the other ones. Some modern political entities, as Switzerland or some American states, where it is frequent the use of it countersigns begun by petition (call countersigns for popular demand) instead of members of the legislature or of the government. The last form, that it is frequently known by plebiscite, it allows to the government to choose and when to maintain a referendum, and also as the subject should be approached. In contrast, Germany is very close of an ideal representative democracy: in Germany you countersign them they are forbidden--partly due to the memory of as Adolf Hitler used that to manipulate plebiscites in its government's favor.
The system of elections that it was used at some countries communist, called democratic centralism, can be considered as an extreme form of representative democracy, where the people chose local representatives, that for its time chose regional representatives, that for its time chose the national assembly, that finally chose the ones that they will govern the country. However, some consider that those systems are not actually democratic, even if the people can vote, since the great distance between the electing individual and the government allows that if it turned easy to manipulate the process. Others oppose, saying that the great distance between voter and government is a common characteristic in electoral systems drawn for gigantic nations (United States and some European potencies, only to give algums examples considered unequivocally democratic, they have serious problems in the democraticidade of its top institutions), and that the great problem of the Soviet system and of other communist countries, that that it turned it truly no-democratic, it was that, instead of they be chosen for the people, candidates were imposed by the directing party.
Almost everybody states today support the democracy in beginning, although generally not in the practice. Even many communist dictatorships call themselves to themselves democracies populares(p.ex. the " Democratic Republic of Vietnam ", Popular Democratic " Republic of Korea "), although in way some is democratic of the point of view of most of the Westerners. One of the weaknesses pointed to the Democracy is the facto of not allowing that objectivos thrown by a long term government, even if they are essential for the progresso/bem to be of the citizens, they cannot be put sideways by the following government, postponing like this important decisions, that is to say, it doesn't allow that there is a direction for the nation in cause.
Some ideologies are opposed openly to the democracy, for example, the Fascism.
Communists argue that democracies are not really democratic, but actually just an illusion maid for the dominant classes, that exercise the real power. In the communist analysis, the working class in the democracies doesn't really have a vote free, since the dominant classes control the media and the public in general it was already -doutrinado for the propaganda of the dominant class. In agreement with the communists, the real democracy is only possible under a socialist system.
For illustrating that manipulation of the people for the dominant classes in the hour of taking an important decision, we can take the following example: in one of the first democratic decisions that news is had, Barrabás was freed, and crucified Jesus.
Right to the Vote
In the past many groups they were excluded of the vote right, in several levels. That exclusion is sometimes a quite open politics, clearly described in the electoral laws; other times it is not clearly described, but it is implemented in the practice by means that seem to have not very to see with the exclusion that is being being really done (p.ex., imposed of vote and literacy solicitations that maintained Afro-American far away from the urns before the era of the civil rights). It is sometimes to a group the vote it was allowed, but the electoral system or the government's institutions were planned willfully to give them less influence than other groups favoreObrigatoriedade of the vote
In some countries, the vote is not a right, but an obligation.
The practice of the obligatory vote repairs Old Greece, when the legislator Athenian Sólon made to approve a specific law forcing the citizens to choose one of the parties, case they didn't want to lose its rights of citizens. The measure was part of a political reform that sought to contain the radicalização of the disputes among factions that divided the pólis. Besides to abolish the slavery for debts and to redistribute the population in agreement with the income, it also created a law that impeded the citizens of if they abstain in the votings of the assembly, under risk of they lose its rights.
In Brazil, the vote is obligatory for citizens between 18 and 65 years, and optional for citizens of 16, 17 or above 65 years. Critical of that law they argue that she facilitates the creation of electoral corrals, where voters of low educational and social level are easily rotten for politicians of larger financial power, that use marketing techniques (when non hard cash or direct favors) for cooptá-los. Still in agreement with the critics, the obligatory vote is a distorção: the vote is a right, and the population cannot be coerced to exercise it.
Exclusion of classes
Until the century XIX, many western democracies had qualification properties in its electoral laws, what meant that just people with a certain wealth degree could vote. Today those laws were abolished thoroughly.
Gender exclusions
Another exclusion that lasted a long time went to have based in the sex. All the democracies prohibited the women of voting up to 1893, when New Zealand became the first country of the world to give to the women the vote right in the men's same terms. That happened due to the success of the feminine movement for the vote right. Today practically all the states allow women to vote; the only exceptions are seven Muslim states, mainly in Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Barein, Brunei, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.
Right of Vote Today
Today, in a lot of democracies, the vote right is guaranteed without race discrimination, ethnic group, class or sex. However, the vote right is not still universal. It is restricted to people that reach a certain age, usually 18 (auspiciously in some places it can be 16--as in Brazil--or 21). Only citizens of a country can usually vote in its elections, although some countries make exceptions to citizens of another countries with that have close liaisons (p.ex., some members of the British Community, and members of the European Union.
The vote right is usually denied prisoners. Some countries also deny the right I vote her for those convicts for serious crimes, even after having freed. In some cases (p.ex. in many states of United States) the denial of the vote right is automatic in the condemnation of any serious crime; in another cases (p.ex. in countries of Europe) the denial of the vote right is an additional penalty that the court can choose for imposing, besides the feather of the imprisonment. Direct democracy refers to the system where the citizens decide each subject directly for voting. In representative democracies, in contrast, the citizens choose representatives in regular intervals, that then vote the subjects in its favor.
The direct democracy became more and more difficult, and he/she necessarily approaches more of the representative democracy, when the number of citizens grows. Historically, the most direct democracies include the municipal encounter of New England (inside of United States), and the old political system of Athens. None of these if enquadraria well for a great population (although the population of Athens was big, most of the population was not composed of people considered as citizens, that, therefore, she was not entitled political; they didn't have them women, slaves and children).
It is questionable if there was already some day a democracy purely direct of any considerable size. In the practice, societies of any complexity always needs a specialization of tasks, besides of the administrative ones; and therefore a direct democracy needs chosen officials. (Although somebody can try to maintain all the important decisions done by direct vote, with the officials merely implementing those decisions).
In the same way, many modern representative democracies incorporate some elements of the direct democracy, it usually countersigns.
We can see direct and indirect democracies as the ideal types, with the real democracies if approaching one of the other ones. Some modern political entities, as Switzerland or some American states, where it is frequent the use of it countersigns begun by petition (call countersigns for popular demand) instead of members of the legislature or of the government. The last form, that it is frequently known by plebiscite, it allows to the government to choose and when to maintain a referendum, and also as the subject should be approached. In contrast, Germany is very close of an ideal representative democracy: in Germany you countersign them they are forbidden--partly due to the memory of as Adolf Hitler used that to manipulate plebiscites in its government's favor.
The system of elections that it was used at some countries communist, called democratic centralism, can be considered as an extreme form of representative democracy, where the people chose local representatives, that for its time chose regional representatives, that for its time chose the national assembly, that finally chose the ones that they will govern the country. However, some consider that those systems are not actually democratic, even if the people can vote, since the great distance between the electing individual and the government allows that if it turned easy to manipulate the process. Others oppose, saying that the great distance between voter and government is a common characteristic in electoral systems drawn for gigantic nations (United States and some European potencies, only to give algums examples considered unequivocally democratic, they have serious problems in the democraticidade of its top institutions), and that the great problem of the Soviet system and of other communist countries, that that it turned it truly no-democratic, it was that, instead of they be chosen for the people, candidates were imposed by the directing party.
Democracies about of the World
It is difficult to need the number of democracies now. The line that divides democratic regimes of the autocratic regimes is fine. Many countries (p.ex. Singapura) they have free elections supposedly, where the government's party always expires, usually accompanied by allegations or repression evidences to any opposition to the government. In those countries it seems there to be the calls " democracies of an alone partido"(se it is that the terms democracy and monopartidarismo are not antagonistic).
However, attempts must determine the number of democracies. In agreement with the House of the Freedom, at the end of the year 2000 there were 120 democracies in the world.