Over the past few weeks, we have had the opportunity to explore the roots of political philosophy. Let’s take a moment to focus in upon the idea of democracy. What is the true definition of democracy?

Lesson:

The Greeks' Perspective

When people read political philosophy from the ancient world, they find a decidedly negative evaluation of democracy. We have become so accustomed to our modern image of democracy that the ancient world's adverse view might seem strange. What could someone possibly have against rule by the people?

In the ancient world, specifically the Greek city-state of Athens, democracy was "rule by the people" in the most direct sense. Political assemblies involved meetings of every single citizen, which at the time included only men with a certain standing in society. Attendance at these meetings would number in the hundreds, and everyone would be involved in the decision-making process. You can imagine how chaotic this might have been! Just picture a screaming match with no end by your politicians. These assemblies would last all day, and would often erupt in great debates and disorganized talking. The leaders of these assemblies would simply be the individuals who could speak more articulately and persuasively than the others and convince others what to do. In retrospect, many of the decisions made by such assemblies were not wise. This led many of the philosophers at the time, most notably Plato and Aristotle, to be suspicious of the merits of democracy. Aristotle's thoughts on democracy are made clear in his outline of the six types of government listed below.

Based in part on the criticisms of pure democracy in the ancient world, when the first democracies began to emerge in the modern world, many believed that the only way to have a stable democracy was through representatives being elected by the people. After the American Revolution, the U.S. founders were interested in creating a government that would be well ordered to prevent chaos and instability. The notion behind this new form of government was that every person would have a vote, but that this vote would be communicated to the government through an elected representative. This representative would have the primary responsibility of setting public policy and would remain faithful to the will of the people through regular elections. This representative form of government is referred to as republican democracy.

The representative form of democracy in the modern world is also combined with the enlightenment ideal of individual liberty. This idea, which evolves from an expanding acceptance of human reason and equality, suggests that governments should be primarily responsible for ensuring that individual liberties are respected and that the basic needs of citizens are met. Thus, in a liberal sense, government is intended to be limited to the role of protector, a role that might be needed among a population. Representatives elected according to liberal democratic principles are responsible for providing for the national defense and ensuring that everyone’s liberty is preserved.

Textbook:

CLASSIC WORKS ARISTOTLE’S SIX TYPES OF GOVERNMENT

The earliest and most famous classification of governments was Aristotle’s in the fourth century B.C. He distinguished among three legitimate kinds of government—where the ruling authority acts in the interests of all—and three corrupt counterparts—where government acts only in the interests of self.

A monarchy, according to Aristotle, is one person ruling in the interest of all. But monarchy can degenerate into tyranny, the corrupt form, under which the single ruler exercises power for the benefit of self. Aristocracy, Greek for rule of the best (aristos), is several persons ruling in the interest of all. But this legitimate rule by a fair and just elite can decay into oligarchy, the corrupt form, in which several persons rule in the interest of themselves.

Aristotle saw the polity (what we might call constitutional democracy) as the rule of many in the interests of all and the best form of government. All citizens have a voice in selecting leaders and framing laws, but formal constitutional procedures protect rights. Aristotle warned that polity can decay into the corrupt form, democracy, the rule of many in the interests of themselves, the worst form of government. Deluded into thinking that one person is as good as another, the masses in a democracy follow the lead of corrupt and selfish demagogues and plunder the property of the hardworking and the capable. Aristotle’s classification, which reigned for nearly 25 centuries, is still useful and can be summarized like this:

A somewhat archaic question is the “form of state,” whether a country is a monarchy or republic. Almost all countries are now republics, which does not necessarily mean good or democratic. Figurehead constitutional monarchies still reign symbolically but do not actually rule in Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and Holland, which are happy with that status. Traditional, working monarchies are still found in the Arab world—Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and others—and may be doomed unless they can turn themselves into limited constitutional monarchies. Failure to do so has led to the overthrow of traditional monarchies and their replacement by revolutionary regimes in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Ethiopia, and Iran.

A somewhat archaic question is the “form of state,” whether a country is a monarchy or republic. Almost all countries are now republics, which does not

necessarily mean good or democratic. Figurehead constitutional monarchies still reign symbolically but do not actually rule in Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and Holland, which are happy with that status. Traditional, working monarchies are still found in the Arab world—Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and others—and may be doomed unless they can turn themselves into limited constitutional monarchies. Failure to do so has led to the overthrow of traditional monarchies and their replacement by revolutionary regimes in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Ethiopia, and Iran.

Democracy has many meanings. Dictators misuse the word to convince subjects that they live in a just system. The Soviet Union used to claim it was the best democracy, and Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi claimed he embodied the precise will of his people. Democracy does not always equal freedom. Elections, even free and fair ones as in Turkey and Egypt, can produce regimes that ride roughshod over rights and freedoms, what is called illiberal democracy. Democracy is a complex and carefully balanced system that needs thoughtful citizens, limits on power, rule of law, and human and civil rights. Not every

country that calls itself a democracy is one, and not every country is capable of becoming one. Egypt is a recent case in point.

democracy Political system of mass participation, competitive elections, and human and civil rights.

illiberal democracy Regimes that are elected but lack democratic qualities such as civil rights and limits on government.

Democracy (from the Greek demokratía; demos = “the people” and kratía = “rule”) carried a negative connotation until the nineteenth century, as thinkers accepted the ancient Greeks’ criticism of direct democracy as mob rule. A “true” democracy, a system in which all citizens meet periodically to elect officials and personally enact laws, has been rare: Athens’s General Assembly, New England town meetings, and Swiss Landsgemeinde are among the few.

The Campaign Process: In Context

Some direct democracy continues in U.S. states through referendums on issues the legislature will not handle. Although referendums seem very democratic, their sponsors can oversimplify and manipulate issues, as Californians see with the scores of measures—some contradicting others—they face on every ballot. French President Charles de Gaulle called referendums to build his own power and bypass conventional politicians. Pakistan’s former president—a general who seized power in a 1999 military coup—had himself confirmed in office by a 2002 referendum. Few were fooled.

referendum A mass vote on an issue rather than for a candidate; a type of direct democracy.

Direct democracy is difficult to carry out because of the size factor. As the Englishman John Selden noted in the early seventeenth century in arguing for a Parliament in London: “The room will not hold all.” A national government that submitted each decision to millions of voters would be too unwieldy to function. Representative democracy evolved as the only workable system.

representative democracy One in which the people do not rule directly but through elected and accountable representatives.

Modern democracy is not the actual setting of policy by the people. Instead, the people play a more general role. Democracy today is, in Lipset’s words, “a political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials, and a social mechanism which permits the largest possible part of the population to influence major decisions by choosing among contenders for political office.” Constitutional means that the government is limited and can wield its authority only in specific ways. Representative democracy has several essential characteristics. Notice that it is not a simple system or one that falls into place automatically. It must be carefully constructed over many years. Attempts to thrust it onto unprepared countries like Russia or Iraq often fail.

Popular Accountability of Government

In a democracy, the policymakers must obtain the support of a majority or a plurality of votes cast. Leaders are accountable to citizens. Elected leaders need to worry that they can be voted out. No one has an inherent right to occupy a position of political power; he or she must be freely, fairly, and periodically elected by fellow citizens, either at regular intervals (as in the United States) or at certain maximum time spans (as in Britain). Most systems permit reelection, although some specify term limits. Reelection is the people’s means both of expressing support and of controlling the general direction of government policy.

Political Competition

Voters must have a choice, either of candidates or parties. That means a minimum of two distinct alternatives. In Europe, voters have a choice among several parties, each of which tries to distinguish its ideology and policies. One-party or one-candidate elections are fake. Americans are supposed to have a choice of two candidates, one for each major party, but most congresspersons run with little or no opposition, as campaign costs dissuade challengers from even trying. Gerrymandering by state legislatures guarantees most incumbents’ reelection. Even the United States is less than fully democratic.

The parties must have time and freedom to organize and present their case well before elections. A regime that permits no opposition activity until shortly before balloting has rigged the election. Likewise, denying media access—especially by controlling television—stunts any opposition. Much of democracy depends on the political freedoms in the months and years before the actual balloting takes place. Physical balloting can still be a problem. In some places (such as Russia in 2012 and in old Chicago), reliable people “vote early and often,” and votes are miscounted. Defective voting systems, such as Florida’s punch-card ballots in 2000, may negate the popular will. Elections by themselves do not equal democracy. Supposing they do is a common mistake.

Alternation in Power

The reins of power must occasionally change hands, with the “ins” becoming the “outs” in a peaceful, legitimate way. No party or individual should get a lock on executive power. A system in which the ruling party stays in power many decades cannot really be democratic. Such parties say they win on popularity but often tilt the rules. In 2011, Singapore’s People’s Action party won its eleventh election in a row; it allowed only a short campaign and redrew constituency boundaries. Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) won 14 straight elections since the 1920s. In 2000, however, Vicente Fox of the National Action Party (PAN) won the presidency, and Mexico became democratic. Likewise Kenya in 2002 voted out the party that had ruled for 39 years. Other African countries are also getting alternation in power, a good sign.

Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington (1927–2008) proposed a “two-turnover test” to mark a stable democracy. That is, two electoral alternations of government indicate that democracy is firmly rooted. Poland, for example, overthrew its Communist regime in 1989 and held free and fair elections (called “founding elections”), won by the Solidarity coalition of Lech Walesa. Some Poles, however, hurt by rapid economic change, in 1995 voted in a president from the Socialists, a party formed out of the old Communist Party. But after a while, they did not like the Socialists either and in 1997 voted in a right-of-center party. Poland has had several turnovers and established its democratic credentials. Russia has never had a turnover.

One unstated but important function of alternation in power is control of corruption. An opposition party that hammers incumbents for corruption is a powerful corrective to the human tendency to misuse public office. Systems without alternation, such as Russia and China, are invariably corrupt.

Uncertain Electoral Outcomes

Related to alternation in power, democratic elections must have an element of uncertainty, fluidity, and individual vote switching. Voting must not be simply by groups, where 100 percent of a tribe, religion, social class, or region automatically votes for a given candidate or party. In such situations, the country may get locked in bitterness and intolerance. Some fear the U.S. culture wars are leading in that direction. A certain percent of the electorate must be up for grabs to keep politicians worried and attentive to the nation as a whole.

In Iraq, voting follows religion too closely. Sunnis and Shias mostly vote for different parties, making governance difficult and violence frequent. African voting, closely tied to tribe, does not produce democracy. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe’s majority Shona tribe reelected him for decades; he used his dictatorial powers to kill members of the minority Ndebele tribe with impunity. Some hope that enough Shonas will say, “I don’t care if he’s a Shona; he has ruined this country,” and vote against his ZANU-PF party. Indians jest that “in India you don’t cast your vote, you vote your caste.” Indian elections can be partially predicted by knowing which castes favor which parties. Fortunately, Indian individualism often overrides caste, making Indian elections democratic and unpredictable

caste Rigid, hereditary social class or group.

Popular Representation

In representative democracies, the voters elect representatives to act as legislators and, as such, to voice and protect their general interest. Legislators usually act for given districts or groups. But how should they act? Some theorists claim legislators must treat elections as mandates to carry out constituents’ wishes: What the voters want is what they should get. Other theorists disagree; constituents often have no opinion on issues, so representatives must act as trustees, carrying out the wishes of constituents when feasible but acting in the best interests of the whole. With opinion running against the 2008 and 2009 financial bailouts, U.S. congresspersons swallowed hard and voted for them, abandoning the mandate theory to act as trustees for the public good. As economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) argued against the mandate theory: “Our chief problems with the classical (democratic) theory centered in the proposition that ‘the people’ hold a definite and rational opinion about every individual question and that they give effect to this opinion—in a democracy—by choosing ‘representatives’ who will see to it that the opinion is carried out.”

mandate A representative carrying out the specific wishes of the public.

trustee A representative deciding what is the public good without a specific mandate.

Of course, few people hold definite opinions on every subject. If they were asked to vote on nitrous oxide limits or reckless bank lending, few would vote. Representative democracy, therefore, does not mean that the representative must become a cipher for constituents; rather, it means that the people as a body must be able to control the general direction of government policy. For example, the people may have a general desire to improve education, but they leave the means and details of achieving this goal to their legislators. It is this partnership between the people and the lawmakers that is the essence of modern democracy. Political scientist E. E. Schattschneider (1892–1971) summarized the case succinctly:

            The beginning of wisdom in democratic theory is to distinguish between the things that the people can do and the things the people cannot do. The worst possible disservice that can be done to the democratic cause is to attribute to the people a mystical, magical omnipotence which takes no cognizance of what very large numbers of people cannot do by the sheer weight of numbers. At this point the common definition of democracy has invited us to make fools of ourselves.

Majority Decision

On any important government decision, there is rarely complete agreement. One faction favors something; another opposes. How to settle the question? The simple answer is that the majority should decide, the procedure used in the democracies of ancient Greece. However, our more modern and practical concept of democracy is that the majority decides but with respect for minority rights. To uphold such rights, an independent judiciary, one not under the thumb of the regime, is a necessity.

Minority views are important. Probably every view now widely held was once a minority view. Most of what is now public policy became law as a result of conflict between majority and minority groups. Furthermore, just as it is true that a minority view may grow over time until it is widely accepted, so may a majority view eventually prove unwise, unworkable, or unwanted. If minority views are silenced, the will of the majority becomes the “tyranny of the majority,” which is just as foreboding as executive tyranny.

Right of Dissent and Disobedience

Related to minority rights, people must have the right to resist the commands of government they deem wrong or unreasonable. This right was invoked in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence. Henry Thoreau (1817–1862), in his opposition to the 1846 war with Mexico, made probably the most profound American defense of civil disobedience when he declared, “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.” The most celebrated advocate of civil disobedience was Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, who read Thoreau. Both considered their method of resistance to be “civil”; that is, it was disobedience but it was nonviolent and did not exceed the general legal structure of the state. It was an attention-getting device that forced the authorities to rethink. Ultimately, Gandhi and his followers forced the British to leave India.

civil disobedience The nonviolent breaking of an unjust law to serve a higher law.

Some look on civil disobedience as an individual act of conscience, but others seek to organize it and mobilize it. The most prominent American organizer was the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose 1960s nonviolent civil-rights campaigns deliberately challenged racist local laws. He and others in his Southern Christian Leadership Conference were often arrested, but once the charges were brought before a federal court, the discriminatory law itself was usually declared unconstitutional. The long-range consequence of their actions changed both the laws and the psychology of America. Without civil disobedience, minority claims would have gone unheard.

Political Equality

In a democracy, all adults (usually now age 18 and over) are equally able to participate in politics: “one person, one vote.” In theory, all are able to run for public office, but critics point out that it takes a great deal of money—and often specific racial and religious ties—to really enter public life. Under the pressure of minority claims and civil disobedience, however, democracies tend to open up over time and become less elite in nature. Barack Obama’s victories were examples.

Popular Consultation

Most leaders realize that to govern effectively they must know what the people want and must be responsive to their needs and demands. Are citizens disturbed by foreign wars, taxes, unemployment, or the cost of gasoline? Intelligent leaders realize that they must neither get too far ahead of public opinion nor fall too far behind it. A U.S. public initially divided over healthcare reform had to be persuaded to support it. Leaders monitor opinion on a continuous basis. Public opinion polls are closely followed. The media can create a dialogue between people and leaders. At press conferences and interviews with elected officials, reporters ask “hot” questions. Editorials and letters to the editor indicate citizens’ views.

In recent years, several critics have noted that U.S. officials often rely heavily on the opinions of small segments of their constituencies because they are well-organized and highly vocal. Most Americans favor at least some gun control, but the National Rifle Association blocks firearms legislation. Washington typically listens to the finance community more than to ordinary citizens.

Free Press

Dictatorships cannot tolerate free and critical mass media; democracies cannot do without them. One of the clearest ways to determine the degree of democracy in a country is to see if the media criticize government, tracked by Reporters Without Borders in its World Press Freedom Index. No criticism, no democracy. One current antidemocratic stunt: Use libel laws to block news reports of government corruption. The mass media provide citizens with facts, raise public awareness, and keep rulers responsive to mass demands. Without a free and critical press, rulers can disguise wrongdoing and corruption and lull the population into passive support. As China permitted a “democracy movement” in the late 1980s, the Chinese media became freer, more honest, and more critical. Beijing did not stand for that long; now critical journalists, doctors, lawyers, and activists are jailed. The new social media, which helped trigger the “Arab Spring,” are hard to control, but China tries, shutting down thousands of blogs and tweets every year.

mass media Modern means of communication that quickly reach very wide audiences. (The word media is plural; medium is the singular form.)

Some Americans argue that the U.S. media go too far, that they take an automatic adversarial stance that undermines government authority and weakens the nation. In some cases this may be true, but in a democracy there is no mechanism to decide what “too far” is. The checks on reckless reporting are competing journals, channels, and blogs that refute each other in what has been called “the marketplace of ideas.” Then citizens, with no government supervision, can decide for themselves if charges are accurate. Only half in jest has the U.S. press been called “the fourth branch of government.”

DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE: ELITISM OR PLURALISM?

6.2 Contrast elitist and pluralist theories of democracy.

Even if all these democratic criteria are met—no easy feat—political power will still not be evenly distributed; a few will have a lot, and many will have little or none. Political scientists see this unevenness of power as normal and unavoidable: Elites make the actual decisions, and ordinary citizens, the masses, generally go along with these decisions. The key dispute is how much elites are accountable to masses. Those who argue that elites are little accountable are elite theorists; those who argue that elites are ultimately accountable are pluralists.

elites The “top” or most influential people in a political system.

pluralism Theory that politics is the interaction of many groups.

One of the early thinkers on elites, Italian political scientist Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941), argued that government always falls into the hands of a few.

            In all societies—from societies that are very undeveloped and have largely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies—two classes of people appear—a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all of the political functions, monopolizes power, and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent.

Elections and Voting: The Basics

The German thinker Robert Michels (1876–1936) argued that any organization, no matter how democratic its intent, ends up run by a small elite; he called this the “Iron Law of Oligarchy.” More recently, Yale political scientist Robert Dahl (1915–) held that “participatory democracy is not possible in large modern societies; government is too big and the issues are too complex. . . . The key political, economic, and social decisions...are made by tiny minorities. . . . It is difficult—nay, impossible—to see how it could be otherwise in large political systems.” These three agree on the inevitability of elites, but Mosca and Michels, elite theorists, see elites as unaccountable, whereas Dahl, a pluralist, sees them as accountable.

Contrary to what one might suppose, modern elite theorists are generally not conservatives but radicals; they decry rule by elites as unfair and undemocratic. Columbia sociologist C. Wright Mills (1916–1962) denounced the “Power Elite” in which big business gives money to politicians, politicians vote massive defense spending, and top generals give lush contracts to big business. This interlocking conspiracy was driving the United States to war, Mills predicted.

Money and connections give elites access to political power, emphasize elite theorists. In 2004, Yale graduates Bush (’68) and Kerry (’66) were both members of the super-elite and secretive Skull and Bones society. In 2012, both Obama and Romney were Harvard Law School graduates. Members of Congress earn about nine times what their constituents make and have an average net worth of about $1 million. Elite, however, does not necessarily mean rich. Few rich people run for office, but they influence those who do by contributions. The “super-PACs” enable billionaires to freely give millions to influence elections. In return, they get favorable laws, policies, and tax breaks. The Bush administration gave the biggest of its 2001 tax cuts to the richest 1 percent and gave special deals to the oil industry, in which both Bush and Vice President Cheney had been executives. Big corporation money controls both major parties, charge critics. Massive campaign contributions make sure no important industry gets seriously harmed; witness the finance industry’s ability to water down laws that regulate them. Critics detected a cozy club of top Wall Streeters and top federal officials. Elite theorists make their case with items like these.

Look again, argue pluralists. The Cold War, not a power elite, drove defense spending, which declined sharply after the Soviet threat disappeared. Most politicians are of modest origins; few are from wealthy families (exceptions: both Roosevelts, JFK, both Bushes, and Romney). Politicians may take big contributions, but they are usually attuned to what wins votes. Big companies do get leaned on. The entire asbestos industry was closed down as a health hazard. Tobacco firms paid millions in lawsuits and face continual government pressure. Giant banks, much against their will, are regulated. Conservative billionaires

lavishly funded pro-Romney super-PACs but still lost the 2012 presidential election. According to elite theory, they should have won.

Politics functions, say pluralists, through interest groups. Just about any group of citizens can organize a group to protest or demand something, and politicians generally listen. To be sure, if the group is wealthy and well-placed, it gets listened to more, but nobody has a hammerlock on the political system. U.S. oil companies are among the richest firms in the world, and they are pro-Arab. Why then does U.S. policy tilt toward Israel? Most American Jews and fundamentalist Christians are pro-Israel, and politicians need their votes and contributions. According to pluralists, interest groups are the great avenues of democracy, making sure government listens to the people. Many argue that only a pluralist society can be democratic. Efforts to found democracies in societies without traditions of pluralism are like trying to plant trees without soil, as we have seen in Russia, where the long Communist rule erased most naturally occurring interest groups.

interest group An association that pressures government for policies it favors.

Interest Groups: The Basics

The pure elite theorist views society as a single pyramid, with a tiny elite at the top. The pure pluralist views society as many billiard balls colliding with each other and with government to produce policy. Both views are overdrawn. A synthesis that more accurately reflects reality might be a series of small pyramids, each capped by an elite. There is interaction of many units, as the pluralists claim, but there is also stratification of leaders and followers, as elite thinkers would have it. (See Figure 6.1.) Robert Dahl called this a “polyarchy,” the rule of the leaders of several groups who have reached stable understandings with each other.

DEMOCRACY DAHL’S “INFLUENCE TERMS”

One of Robert Dahl’s many contributions is his explication of the varieties of power, which Dahl defines as A getting B to do what A wants. Dahl prefers the more neutral “influence terms,” which he arranged on a scale from best to worst:

                        ■ Rational persuasion, the nicest form of influence, means telling the truth and explaining why someone should do something, like your doctor convincing you to stop smoking.

                        ■ Manipulative persuasion, a notch lower, means lying or misleading to get someone to do something, the way politicians do in elections.

                        ■ Inducement, still lower, means offering rewards or punishments to get someone to do something, like bribery or vote buying.

                        ■ Power threatens severe punishment, such as jail or loss of job.

                        ■ Coercion is power with no way out; you have to do it.

                        ■ Physical force is backing up coercion with use or threat of bodily harm.

Thus we can tell which governments are best: the democratic ones that use influence at the higher end of the scale. The worst use the unpleasant authoritarian forms of influence at the lower end.

Arend Lijphart (1936–) called it “consociational democracy.” The elites of each important group strike a bargain to play by the rules of a constitutional game and to restrain their followers from violence. In return, each group gets something; no one gets everything. Lijphart’s example of where this has worked successfully is his native Netherlands, where the elites of the Catholic, Calvinist, and secular blocs reached an “elite accommodation” with each other. In Lebanon, by contrast, elite accommodation broke down, resulting in civil strife. Most stable countries have “conflict management” by elites. The United States shows an interplay of business, labor, ethnic, regional, and other elites, each delivering enough to keep

their people in line, each cooperating to varying degrees with other elites. When elite consensus broke down, the United States, too, experienced a bloody Civil War.

DEMOCRACY WHY DEMOCRACIES FAIL

Democracy can actually come too soon in the political life of a nation. Stable democracy has historically taken root in countries with large, educated middle classes. As Barrington Moore observed in 1966, “No bourgeoisie, no democracy.” People in poor countries care more about survival than democracy. In a 2004 UN survey of Latin America, a majority said they preferred a dictator who puts food on the table to an elected leader who does not. Middle classes bring with them moderation, tolerance, and the realization that not everything can be fixed at once. Without that, elections can undermine democracy, as seen in Iraq, Russia, and Zimbabwe.

The transition to democracy is delicate and happens best slowly and gradually, as it did in Britain with a series of Reform Acts during the nineteenth century. Typically, during the first decades of democracy, only the better-off can participate, a pattern called whig democracy. (In the United States, this ended with Jackson’s election in 1828.) When the broad masses of citizens suddenly get the vote, the system can break down. Newly enfranchised and unsophisticated voters often fall for the extravagant or extremist promises of demagogues, who offer simple solutions to get the votes of the gullible. They vow to “share the wealth” or advocate aggressive nationalism or religious fundamentalism. Chávez of Venezuela, Thaksin of Thailand, and Ahmadinejad of Iran are examples. Military coups sometimes throw out demagogues. If Saudi Arabia had free elections, many Saudis would vote for an Islamic fundamentalist. Attempting democracy too soon can lead to rule by demagogues, generals, or fanatics.

whig democracy Democracy for the few, typical of early stages of democracy.

demagogue Politician who whips up masses with extreme and misleading issues.

Several characteristics tend to block democracy:

                        1. Poverty

                        2. Major inequality

                        3. No middle class

                        4. Low education levels

                        5. Oil

                        6. Tribalism

                        7. Little civil society

                        8. Had been a colony

                        9. No earlier democratic experience

                        10. No democratic countries nearby

Actually, these items often come as a package. Democracy in a country with all or most of these characteristics rarely succeeds.