4 ms·
That's because "democracy" includes more than "direct democracy". 1) "Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern
by dalke 11y ago
That's because "democracy" includes more than "direct democracy".
1) "Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have active participation in the political decision making, for example voting on policy initiatives directly. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called a representative democracy." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Types_of_democracies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Types_of_democracies
2) "The pure form of direct democracy only exists in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.[16] The Swiss confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy). The nature of direct democracy in Switzerland is fundamentally complemented by its profound federal governmental structures (in German also called the Subsidiaritätsprinzip).
Most western countries have representative systems. Switzerland is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland
You may of course regard this as not sufficiently significant. Personally, I include some of the things of Norse/Germanic law as examples of direct democracy. Eg, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_of_all_Swedes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_of_all_Swedes :
> All free men living in the realm and who were able to wield a weapon had the right to participate, and the assembly was led by the lawspeaker.
3) Voting eligibility then was not based only on citizenship. "Participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen who owned land and wasn't a slave, and the number of these "varied between 30,000 and 50,000 out of a total population of around 250,000 to 300,000." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy .
Thus, the women citizens couldn't vote, so it wasn't "citizen majority" in our post-Suffragette understanding. Of course, the concept of "citizen" is tricky. If you define 'citizen' as 'the people with the right to vote' then the women of Athens were clearly not citizens. Then again, under that definition, felons in the US who have their right to vote taken away would not be citizens either. You might look to the government at the time to use their definition, but letting the lawmakers decide what 'citizen' means is suspect. An absolute monarchy, dictatorship, or other autocracy could count as a democracy if the ruler declares "I am the only Citizen". Or, quoting Terry Pratchett:
> Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.
- lr4444lr 11y agoI think this is extremely significant. As I said elsewhere in replies, the original study (or the summary brief about it linked here) gives zero insight into the design of measures they use to quantify "democracy", and leaves all of us commentators free to read different shades of meaning in the material you reference, let alone our often misinformed personal opinions. My point wasn't to revel in the pedantry of precise definitions, but "reductio ad absurdum" of the idea that anyone reading the link could take seriously the pedantic claim that democracy has been seeing "decline" without knowing what definition was under the authors' assumption. This is why social science often gets a bad rap.