History of democracy
Part of the Politics series |
Democracy |
---|
Politics portal |
A democracy is a political system, or a system of decision-making within an institution, organization, or state, in which members have a share of power.[2] Modern democracies are characterized by two capabilities of their citizens that differentiate them fundamentally from earlier forms of government: to intervene in society and have their sovereign (e.g., their representatives) held accountable to the international laws of other governments of their kind. Democratic government is commonly juxtaposed with oligarchic and monarchic systems, which are ruled by a minority and a sole monarch respectively.
Democracy is generally associated[vague] with the efforts of the ancient Greeks, whom 18th-century intellectuals[who?] considered the founders of Western civilization. These individuals attempted to leverage these early democratic experiments into a new template for post-monarchical political organization.[3][page needed] The extent to which these 18th-century democratic revivalists succeeded in turning the democratic ideals of the ancient Greeks into the dominant political institution of the next 300 years is hardly debatable, even if the moral justifications they often employed might be. Nevertheless, the critical historical juncture catalyzed by the resurrection of democratic ideals and institutions fundamentally transformed the ensuing centuries and has dominated the international landscape since the dismantling of the final vestige of the empire following the end of the Second World War.
Modern
Antiquity
Prehistoric origins
Anthropologists have identified forms of proto-democracy that date back to small bands of hunter-gatherers that predate the establishment of agrarian, sedentary societies and still exist virtually unchanged[
These types of democracy are commonly identified as
The concepts (and name) of democracy and constitution as a form of government originated in ancient Athens circa 508 BCE. In ancient Greece, where there were many city-states with different forms of government, democracy was contrasted with governance by elites (aristocracy), by one person (monarchy), by tyrants (tyranny), etc.
Potential proto-democratic societies
Although fifth-century BC Athens is widely considered to have been the first state to develop a sophisticated system of rule that we today call democracy,[8][9][10][11][12][13] in recent decades scholars have explored the possibility that advancements toward democratic government occurred independently in the Near East, the Indian subcontinent, and elsewhere before this.[14]
Phoenicia
The practice of "governing by assembly" was at least part of how ancient Phoenicians made important decisions. One source is the story of Wen-Amon, an Egyptian trader who travelled north to the Phoenician city of Byblos around 1100 BCE to trade for Phoenician lumber. After loading his lumber, a group of pirates surrounded Wen-Amon and his cargo ship. The Phoenician prince of Baylon was called in to fix the problem, whereupon he summoned his mw-'dwt, an old Semitic word meaning assembly, to reach a decision. This shows that Byblos was ruled in part by a popular assembly (drawn from what subpopulation and equipped with exactly what power is not known exactly).[15]
Mesopotamia
Studying pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia, Thorkild Jacobsen used Sumerian epic, myth, and historical records to identify what he has called primitive democracy. By this, Jacobsen means a government in which ultimate power rests with the mass of free (non-slave) male citizens, although "the various functions of government are as yet little specialised [and] the power structure is loose". In early Sumer, kings like Gilgamesh did not hold the autocratic power that later Mesopotamian rulers wielded. Rather, major city-states functioned with councils of elders and "young men" (likely free men bearing arms) that possessed the final political authority, and had to be consulted on all major issues such as war.[16][17]
The work has gained little outright acceptance. Scholars criticize the use of the word "democracy" in this context since the same evidence also can be interpreted to demonstrate a power struggle between primitive monarchy and noble classes, a struggle in which the common people function more like pawns rather than any kind of sovereign authority.[18] Jacobsen conceded that the vagueness of the evidence prohibits the separation between the Mesopotamian democracy from a primitive oligarchy.[19]
Indian subcontinent
Another claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics" of India,
Key characteristics of the gaṇa seem to include a monarch, usually known by the name
Scholars differ over how best to describe these governments, and the vague, sporadic quality of the evidence allows for wide disagreements. Some emphasize the central role of the assemblies and thus tout them as democracies; other scholars focus on the upper-class domination of the leadership and possible control of the assembly and see an oligarchy or an aristocracy.[28][29] Despite the assembly's obvious power, it has not yet been established whether the composition and participation were truly popular. The first main obstacle is the lack of evidence describing the popular power of the assembly. This is reflected in the Arthashastra, an ancient handbook for monarchs on how to rule efficiently. It contains a chapter on how to deal with the sangas, which includes injunctions on manipulating the noble leaders, yet it does not mention how to influence the mass of the citizens—a surprising omission if democratic bodies, not the aristocratic families, actively controlled the republican governments.[30] Another issue is the persistence of the four-tiered Varna class system.[28] The duties and privileges on the members of each particular caste—rigid enough to prohibit someone sharing a meal with those of another order—might have affected the roles members were expected to play in the state, regardless of the formality of the institutions. A central tenet of democracy is the notion of shared decision-making power. The absence of any concrete notion of citizen equality across these caste system boundaries leads many scholars to claim that the true nature of gaṇas and 'saṅghas is not comparable to truly democratic institutions.[29]
Sparta
Ancient Greece, in its early period, was a loose collection of independent
The two kings served as the head of the government. They ruled simultaneously, but they came from two separate lines. The dual kingship diluted the effective power of the executive office. The kings shared their judicial functions with other members of the gerousia. The members of the gerousia had to be over the age of 60 and were elected for life. In theory, any Spartan over that age could stand for election. However, in practice, they were selected from wealthy, aristocratic families. The gerousia possessed the crucial power of legislative initiative. Apella, the most democratic element, was the assembly where Spartans above the age of 30 elected the members of the gerousia and the ephors, and accepted or rejected gerousia's proposals.[35] Finally, the five ephors were Spartans chosen in apella to oversee the actions of the kings and other public officials and, if necessary, depose them. They served for one year and could not be re-elected for a second term. Over the years, the ephors held great influence on the formation of foreign policy and acted as the main executive body of the state. Additionally, they had full responsibility for the Spartan educational system, which was essential for maintaining the high standards of the Spartan army. As Aristotle noted, ephors were the most important key institution of the state, but because often they were appointed from the whole social body it resulted in very poor men holding office, with the ensuing possibility that they could easily be bribed.[36][37]
The creator of the Spartan system of rule was the legendary lawgiver
The reforms of Lycurgus were written as a list of rules/laws called Great Rhetra, making it the world's first written constitution.[39] In the following centuries, Sparta became a military superpower, and its system of rule was admired throughout the Greek world for its political stability.[40] In particular, the concept of equality played an important role in Spartan society. The Spartans referred to themselves as όμοιοι (Homoioi, men of equal status). It was also reflected in the Spartan public educational system, agoge, where all citizens irrespective of wealth or status had the same education.[34] This was admired almost universally by contemporaries, from historians such as Herodotus and Xenophon to philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. In addition, the Spartan women, unlike elsewhere, enjoyed "every kind of luxury and intemperance" including rights such as the right to inheritance, property ownership, and public education.[41]
Overall, the Spartans were relatively free to criticize their kings and they were able to depose and exile them. However, despite these democratic elements in the Spartan constitution, there are two cardinal criticisms, classifying Sparta as an oligarchy. First, individual freedom was restricted, since as Plutarch writes "no man was allowed to live as he wished", but as in a "military camp" all were engaged in the public service of their polis. And second, the gerousia effectively maintained the biggest share of power of the various governmental bodies.[42][43]
The political stability of Sparta also meant that no significant changes in the constitution were made. The oligarchic elements of Sparta became even stronger, especially after the influx of gold and silver from the victories in the
Athens
Athens is often regarded.
Athens emerged in the 7th century BCE, like many other
Solon and the foundations of democracy
Solon (c. 638 – c. 558 BCE), an Athenian (Greek) of noble descent but moderate means, was a
Overall, Solon devised the reforms of 594 BCE to avert the political, economic, and
Democracy under Cleisthenes and Pericles
Even though the Solonian reorganization of the constitution improved the economic position of the Athenian lower classes, it did not eliminate the bitter aristocratic contentions for control of the archonship, the chief executive post.
After the fall of tyranny (510 BCE) and before the year 508–507 was over,
Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life.[61]
The Athenian democracy of Cleisthenes and Pericles was based on freedom of citizens (through the reforms of Solon) and on equality of citizens (isonomia) - introduced by Cleisthenes and later expanded by Ephialtes and Pericles. To preserve these principles, the Athenians used lot for selecting officials. Casting lots aimed to ensure that all citizens were "equally" qualified for office, and to avoid any corruption allotment machines were used.[62] Moreover, in most positions chosen by lot, Athenian citizens could not be selected more than once; this rotation in office meant that no-one could build up a power base through staying in a particular position.[63]
The courts formed another important political institution in Athens; they were composed of a large number of juries with no judges, and they were selected by lot on a daily basis from an annual pool, also chosen by lot. The courts had unlimited power to control the other bodies of the government and its political leaders.[6] Participation by the citizens selected was mandatory,[64] and a modest financial compensation was given to citizens whose livelihood was affected by being "drafted" to office. The only officials chosen by elections, one from each tribe, were the strategoi (generals), where military knowledge was required, and the treasurers, who had to be wealthy, since any funds revealed to have been embezzled were recovered from a treasurer's private fortune. Debate was open to all present and decisions in all matters of policy were taken by majority vote in the Ecclesia (compare direct democracy), in which all male citizens could participate (in some cases with a quorum of 6000). The decisions taken in the Ecclesia were executed by the Boule of 500, which had already approved the agenda for the Ecclesia. The Athenian Boule was elected by lot every year[65] and no citizen could serve more than twice.[66]
Overall, the Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also directest in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule, and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.[67] And even though the rights of the individual (probably) were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense,[ii] the Athenians enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government, but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person.[9]
The birth of political philosophy
Within the Athenian democratic environment, many philosophers from all over the
Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty, for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.[69]
Decline, revival, and criticisms
The Athenian democracy, in its two centuries of life-time, twice voted against its democratic constitution (both times during the crisis at the end of the
However, democracy in Athens declined not only due to external powers, but due to its citizens, such as Plato and his student Aristotle. Because of their influential works, after the rediscovery of classics during the Renaissance, Sparta's political stability was praised,[70][71][10] while the Periclean democracy was described as a system of rule where either the less well-born, the mob (as a collective tyrant), or the poorer classes held power.[9] Only centuries afterwards, after the publication of A History of Greece by George Grote from 1846 onwards, did modern political thinkers start to view the Athenian democracy of Pericles positively.[72] In the late 20th century scholars re-examined the Athenian system of rule as a model of empowering citizens and as a "post-modern" example for communities and organizations alike.[73]
Rome
Rome's history has helped preserve the concept of democracy over the centuries. The Romans invented the concept of classics and many works from Ancient Greece were preserved.[74] Additionally, the Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries,[75] and today's modern (representative) democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models.[76]
The Roman Republic
Rome was a city-state in
The political structure as outlined in the Roman constitution resembled a mixed constitution[79] and its constituent parts were comparable to those of the Spartan constitution: two consuls, embodying the monarchic form; the Senate, embodying the aristocratic form; and the people through the assemblies.[80] The consul was the highest ranking ordinary magistrate.[81] Consuls had power in both civil and military matters. While in the city of Rome, the consuls were the head of the Roman government and they would preside over the Senate and the assemblies. While abroad, each consul would command an army. The Senate passed decrees, which were called senatus consultum and were official advices to a magistrate. However, in practice, it was difficult for a magistrate to ignore the Senate's advice.[81] The focus of the Roman Senate was directed towards foreign policy. Though it technically had no official role in the management of military conflict, the Senate ultimately was the force that oversaw such affairs. Also, it managed Rome's civil administration. The requirements for becoming a senator included having at least 100,000 denarii worth of land, being born of the patrician (noble aristocrats) class, and having held public office at least once before. New Senators had to be approved by the sitting members.[81] The people of Rome through the assemblies had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new laws, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or dissolution) of alliances. Despite the obvious power the assemblies had, in practice, the assemblies were the least powerful of the other bodies of government. An assembly was legal only if summoned by a magistrate[81] and it was restricted from any legislative initiative or the ability to debate. And even the candidates for public office as Livy writes "levels were designed so that no one appeared to be excluded from an election and yet all of the clout resided with the leading men".[82] Moreover, the unequal weight of votes was making a rare practice for asking the lowest classes for their votes.[82][83]
Roman stability, in Polybius' assessment, was owing to the checks each element put on the superiority of any other: a consul at war, for example, required the cooperation of the Senate and the people if he hoped to secure victory and glory, and could not be indifferent to their wishes. This was not to say that the balance was in every way even: Polybius observes that the superiority of the Roman to the Carthaginian constitution (another mixed constitution) at the time of the Hannibalic War was an effect of the latter's greater inclination toward democracy than to aristocracy.[84] Moreover, recent attempts to posit for Rome personal freedom in the Greek sense – eleutheria: living as you like – have fallen on stony ground, since eleutheria (which was an ideology and way of life in the democratic Athens[85]) was anathema in the Roman eyes.[86] Rome's core values included order, hierarchy, discipline, and obedience. These values were enforced with laws regulating the private life of an individual. The laws were applied in particular to the upper classes, since the upper classes were the source of Roman moral examples.
Rome became the ruler of a great
Transition to empire
Over the next few hundred years, various generals would bypass or overthrow the Senate for various reasons, mostly to address perceived injustices, either against themselves or against poorer citizens or soldiers. One of those generals was
Institutions in the medieval era
Early institutions included:
- The continuations of the early Germanic thing from the Viking Age:
- The petty kingdoms and then that of a unified England before the Norman Conquest.
- The Frankish custom of the Märzfeld or Camp of Mars.[87]
- In the Iberian Peninsula, in Portuguese, Leonese, Castillian, Aragonese, Catalan and Valencian customs, cortes (or corts) were periodically convened to debate the state of the Realms. The Corts of Catalonia were the first parliament of Europe that officially obtained the power to pass legislation.[88]
- Tynwald, on the Isle of Man, claims to be one of the oldest continuous parliaments in the world, with roots back to the late 9th or 10th century.
- The Burnt Njal's stepson wanted to enter it, Njal had to persuade the Althing to enlarge itself so a seat would become available. But as each independent farmer in the country could choose what goði represented him, the system could be claimed as an early form of democracy. The Alþing has run nearly continuously to the present day. The Althing was preceded by less elaborate "things" (assemblies) all over Northern Europe.[89]
- Sicilian Parliament of the kingdom of Sicily, from 1097, one of the oldest parliaments in the world and the first legislature in the modern sense.[90][91]
- The Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker reminded the king in a long speech that the power resided with the Swedish people and not with the king. When the king heard the din of swords beating the shields in support of Þorgnýr's speech, he gave in. Adam of Bremenwrote that the people used to obey the king only when they thought his suggestions seemed better, although in war his power was absolute.
- The Swiss Landsgemeinde.
- In Norway: Gulating, Borgarting, Eidsivating, Frostating
- The
- The election of Uthman in the Rashidun Caliphate (7th century).
- The election of Gopala in the Pala Empire(8th century).
- The tanist. The new king had to be descended within four generations from a previous king, so this usually became, in practice, a hereditary kingship; although some kingships alternated between lines of cousins. About 80 to 100 túatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland. Each túath controlled a more or less compact area of land which it could pretty much defend from cattle-raids, and this was divided among its members.
- The Shia Muslims, have traditionally chosen their leaders via community-wide elections of qualified candidates starting in the 8th century.[92][93] They were distinguished early on in the region by their belief that the ruler needed the consent of the ruled.[94] The leader exercised both religious and secular rule.[93]
- The guilds, of economic, social and religious natures, in the later Middle Ages elected officers for yearly terms.
- The Hanseatic leaguehad not a modern democratic system but a guild democratic system. The Italian cities in the middle medieval period had "lobbies war" democracies without institutional guarantee systems (a full developed balance of powers). During late medieval and renaissance periods, Venice became an oligarchy and others became "Signorie". They were, in any case in late medieval times, not nearly as democratic as the Athenian-influenced city-states of Ancient Greece (discussed above), but they served as focal points for early modern democracy.
- until 1510.
- The Basque Country in which farmholders of a rural area connected to a particular church would meet to reach decisions on issues affecting the community and to elect representatives to the provincial Batzar Nagusiak/Juntos Generales.[95]
- The rise of democratic parliaments in England and Scotland: Magna Carta (1215) limiting the authority of powerholders; first representative parliament (1265).[96][97] The Magna Carta signed by King John implicitly supported what became the English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. The emergence of petitioning in the 13th century is some of the earliest evidence of this parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people.
- Ukrainian Cossacks was one of the forms of democracy. They had such forms as elections, civil discussion of decisions and the hetman's accountability to the people.
Indigenous peoples of the Americas
This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (November 2023) |
Professor of anthropology
Elizabeth Tooker, a professor of anthropology at Temple University and an authority on the culture and history of the Northern Iroquois, has reviewed Weatherford's claims and concluded they are myth rather than fact. The idea that North American Indians had a democratic culture is several decades old, but not usually expressed within historical literature. The relationship between the Iroquois League and the Constitution is based on a portion of a letter written by Benjamin Franklin and a speech by the Iroquois chief Canassatego in 1744. Tooker concluded that the documents only indicate that some groups of Iroquois and white settlers realized the advantages of a confederation, and that ultimately there is little evidence to support the idea that eighteenth century colonists were knowledgeable regarding the Iroquois system of governance.[99]
What little evidence there is regarding this system indicates chiefs of different tribes were permitted representation in the Iroquois League council, and this ability to represent the tribe was hereditary. The council itself did not practice representative government, and there were no elections; deceased chiefs' successors were selected by the most senior woman within the hereditary lineage in consultation with other women in the clan. Decision making occurred through lengthy discussion and decisions were unanimous, with topics discussed being introduced by a single tribe. Tooker concludes that "...there is virtually no evidence that the framers borrowed from the Iroquois" and that the myth is largely based on a claim made by Iroquois linguist and ethnographer J.N.B. Hewitt which was exaggerated and misinterpreted after his death in 1937.[99][undue weight? ]
The Aztecs also practiced elections, but the elected officials elected a supreme speaker, not a ruler.[98] However, a contemporary civilisation, Tlaxcallan, along with other Mesoamerican city states, are likely to have practiced collective rule.[100]
Rise of democracy in modern national governments
Early Modern Era milestones
- King Henry's Articles (1573). See also: Szlachta history and political privileges, Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Organisation and politics of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.[102]
- 1610: The Case of Proclamations in England decided that "the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm" and that "the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him."
- 1610: Dr. Bonham's Case decided that "in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament".
- 1619: The Virginia House of Burgesses, the first representative legislative body in the New World, is established.
- 1620: The Pilgrims, and fellow voyagers on forming a government among themselves, based on majority rule, is signed.
- 1628: During a period of renewed interest in Magna Carta,[103] the Petition of Right was passed by the Parliament of England. It established, among other things, the illegality of taxation without parliamentary consent and of arbitrary imprisonment.[104]
- 1642–1651: The idea of the political party with Whigsin the Parliament.
- 1679: English Act of Habeas Corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal; one of the documents integral to the constitution of the United Kingdom and the history of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
- 1682: William Penn wrote his Frame of Government of Pennsylvania. The document gave the colony a representative legislature and granted liberal freedoms to the colony's citizens.
- 1689: The
- 1689: social contract theory and the consent of the governed.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century milestones
- 1707: The first Parliament of Great Britain is established after the merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland under the Acts of Union 1707, succeeding the English parliament. From around 1721–42, Robert Walpole, regarded as the first prime minister of Great Britain, chaired cabinet meetings, appointed all other ministers, and developed the doctrine of cabinet solidarity.[107][108]
- 1755: The Corsican Republic led by Pasquale Paoli with the Corsican Constitution
- From the late 1770s: new Constitutions and Bills explicitly describing and limiting the authority of powerholders, many based on the English Constitution of May 3, 1791 "the first constitution of its kind in Europe".[109]
- The United States: the Founding Fathers rejected limited 'democracy' run by traditionally defined aristocrats, the creation of a legally defined "Title of Nobility" is forbidden by the Constitution.[110][111][112] The Americans, as with the British, took their cue from the Roman republic model: only the patrician classes were involved in government.[113][114]
- 1776: Virginia Declaration of Rights is published; the American Declaration of Independence proclaims that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- United States Constitution ratified in 1788, created bicameral legislature with members of the House of Representatives elected "by the People of the several states," and members of the Senate elected by the state legislatures. The Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, leaving that to the constituent states, which mostly enfranchised only adult white males who owned land.[115]
- 1791: the United States Bill of Rights ratified.
- 1790s: First Party System in U.S. involves invention of locally rooted political parties in the United States; networks of party newspapers; new canvassing techniques; use of caucus to select candidates; fixed party names; party loyalty; party platform (Jefferson 1799);
- 1800: peaceful transition between parties
- 1780s: development of social movements identifying themselves with the term 'democracy': Political clashes between 'aristocrats' and 'democrats' in Benelux countries changed the semi-negative meaning of the word 'democracy' in Europe, which was until then regarded as synonymous with anarchy, into a much more positive opposite of 'aristocracy'.
- 1789–1799: the French Revolution
- The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence, is adopted on 26 August 1789 and declares that "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights" and proclaimed the universal character of human rights.
- Universal male suffrage established for the election of the National Convention in September 1792, but revoked by the Directory in 1795.
- Napoleonin 1802.
- 1791: The Haitian Revolution a successful slave revolution, established a free republic.
- 1792: Local elections instituted in Freetown colony in December 1792, in which Nova Scotian immigrants could elect tythingmen and hundredors.[117]
- The United Kingdom
- 1807: The slave traders.
- 1832: The passing of the Great Reform Act, which gave representation to previously under represented urban areas in the U.K. and extended the voting franchise to a wider population. Followed later in the 19th century and 20th century with several further Reform Acts.
- 1833: The Slavery Abolition Actwas passed, which took effect across the British Empire from 1 August 1834.
- 1807: The
- 1810: 24 of September: Opening session of the Cortes of Cádiz, with representatives of all Spanish provinces, including those in America.
- 1820: First Cortes Gerais in Portugal under a Constitutional Charter.
- 1835: first modern constitution.
- 1837: February 3: Local election in South Africa (British colony) in the city of Beaufort West, the first city organizing the election of a municipal council after the Cape Town Ordinance of 1836 (Order 9 from 1836)[118]
- 1844: The bicameral parliament consisting of an Assembly (Vouli) and a Senate (Gerousia). Power then passed into the hands of a group of Greek politicians, most of whom who had been commanders in the Greek War of Independenceagainst the Ottomans.
- 1848: Universal male suffrage was re-established in France in March of that year, in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[119]
- 1848: Following the French, the Revolutions of 1848, although in many instances forcefully put down, did result in democratic constitutions in some other European countries, among them the German states, Denmark and Netherlands.
- 1850s: introduction of the secret ballot in Australia; 1872 in UK; 1892 in USA
- 1853: Black Africans given the vote for the first time in Southern Africa, in the British-administered Cape Province.
- 1856: USA – property ownership requirements were eliminated in all states, giving suffrage to most adult white males. However, tax-paying requirements remained in five states until 1860 and in two states until the 20th century.[120]
- 1870: USA – 15th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibits voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, colour, or previous condition of slavery.
- 1878-80: William Ewart Gladstone's UK Midlothian campaign ushered in the modern political campaign.[121][122]
- 1893: New Zealand is the first nation to introduce universal suffrage by awarding the vote to women (universal male suffrage had been in place since 1879).
- 1894: South Australia is the first place to pass legislation allowing women to stand for election to parliament
- 1905: Persian Constitutional Revolution, first parliamentary system in middle east.
- 1911: UK Parliament Act restricted the unelected upper house from obstructing legislation from the elected lower house.
The secret ballot
The notion of a secret ballot, where one is entitled to the privacy of their votes, is taken for granted by most today by virtue of the fact that it is simply considered the norm. However, this practice was highly controversial in the 19th century; it was widely argued that no man would want to keep his vote secret unless he was ashamed of it.[citation needed]
The two earliest systems used were the Victorian method and the South Australian method. Both were introduced in 1856 to voters in
Waves of democracy in the 20th century
The end of the
In 1918 the United Kingdom granted the women over 30 who met a property qualification the right to vote, a second one was later passed in 1928 granting women and men equal rights. On August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution was adopted which prohibits the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex. French women got the right to vote in 1944, but did not actually cast their ballot for the first time until April 29, 1945.
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on 2 June 1924. The act further enfranchised the rights of peoples resident within the boundaries of the United States.
Post–World War II
World War II was ultimately a victory for democracy in Western Europe, where representative governments were established that reflected the general will of their citizens. However, many countries of Central and Eastern Europe became undemocratic Soviet satellite states. In Southern Europe, a number of right-wing authoritarian dictatorships (most notably in Spain and Portugal) continued to exist.
Japan had moved towards democracy during the
Decolonisation and civil rights movements
World War II also planted seeds of democracy outside Europe and Japan, as it weakened, with the exception of the USSR and the United States, all the old colonial powers while strengthening anticolonial sentiment worldwide. Many restive colonies/possessions were promised subsequent independence in exchange for their support for embattled colonial powers during the war.
In 1946, the United States granted independence to the Philippines, which preserved a democratic political system as a presidential republic until the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos.
The aftermath of World War II also resulted in the United Nations' decision to partition the British Mandate into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. On 14 May 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and thus was born the first full democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage.[123][124]
In the United States of America, the
Late Cold War and post-Soviet democratication
New waves of democracy swept across Southern Europe in the 1970s, as a number of right-wing nationalist dictatorships fell from power. Later, in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, the
Much of Eastern Europe, Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, and several Arab, central Asian and African states, and the not-yet-state that is the Palestinian Authority moved towards greater liberal democracy in the 1990s and 2000s.
By the end of the century, the world had changed from having in 1900 not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage, to 120 of the world's 192 nations, or 62% having become such democracies. 25 nations, or 13% of the world's nations had "restricted democratic practices" in 1900 and in 2000 16, or 8% of the world's nations were such restricted democracies. Other nations had, and have, various forms of non-democratic rule.[126] The numbers are indicative of the expansion of democracy during the twentieth century, the specifics though may be open to debate (for example, New Zealand enacted universal suffrage in 1893, but this is discounted due to lack of complete sovereignty of the Māori vote).
Democracy in the 21st century
By region
The
In Africa, out of 55 countries, democratization seems almost stalled since 2005 because of the resistance of some 20 non-democratic regimes, most of which originated in the 1980s.
In Asia,
In Europe,
Overall
Despite the number of democratic states has continued to grow since 2006, the share of weaker electoral democracies has grown significantly. This is the strongest causal factor behind fragile democracies.[133] As of 2020, authoritarianism and populism are on the rise around the world, Large parts of the world, such as China, Russia, Central and South East Asia, the Middle East and much of Africa have consolidated authoritarian rule rather seeing it weaken.
Determining the continuity and age of independent democracies depends on the criteria applied, but generally the United States is identified as the oldest democracy, while the country with longest history of universal suffrage is New Zealand.[147]
Contemporary innovations
Under the influence of the theory of deliberative democracy, there have been several experiments where citizens and their representatives assemble to exchange reasons. The use of random selection to form a representative deliberative body is most commonly known as citizens' assembly. Citizens' assemblies have been used in Canada (2004, 2006) and the Netherlands (2006) to debate electoral reform, and in Iceland (2009 and 2010) for broader constitutional change.
See also
Important documents and milestones include
- Magna Carta
- Sweden's Age of Liberty
- Union of Utrecht (1579), the constitution of the Dutch Republic of the 7 provinces
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1968
Important figures in the history of democracy include
- Abraham Lincoln
- Alexis de Tocqueville
- Amartya Sen
- Anders Chydenius
- Andrew Jackson
- Aristotle
- Cleisthenes
- Cola di Rienzo
- Corazon Aquino
- Cornelius Castoriadis
- Edmund Burke
- Hugo Kołłątaj
- James Madison
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
- John Locke
- John Stuart Mill
- John Wilkes
- Lech Wałęsa
- Maximilien Robespierre
- Mikhail Gorbachev
- Montesquieu
- Mustafa Kemal
- Nelson Mandela
- Niccolò Machiavelli
- Oliver Cromwell
- Pasquale Paoli
- Pericles
- Plato
- Samuel P. Huntington
- Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester
- Spinoza
- Solon
- Sun Yat-sen
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Paine
- Walking Stewart
- Woodrow Wilson
Notes
- J. Dunn, J. Ober, T. Buckley, J. Thorley and E. W. Robinson, who examine the origins and the reasons of Athens being the first[8][9][10][11][12][13] to developed a sophisticated system of rule that we today call democracy. Despite its flaws (slavery, no women's rights) it is often considered the closest to the ideal democracy and called as classical democracy. It is often compared with modern (representative) democracies.[148][149]
References
Citations
- ^ Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, p. 440.
- ^ "democracy, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 28 November 2014.
- ^ Morris I. The Measure Of Civilization: How Social Development Decides The Fate Of Nations [e-book]. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2013. Available from: eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost), Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 18, 2017.
- ^ S2CID 145312307.
- ^ Political System Updated November 17, 2023. Encyclopædia Britannica
- ^ a b Democracy Updated March 17, 2024. Encyclopædia Britannica
- ISSN 2151-9463. Retrieved 18 March 2024.
- ^ a b c Dunn, 1994, p. 2
- ^ a b c d e Clarke, 2001, pp. 194–201
- ^ a b c Seminar Notes by Prof. Paul Cartledge at University of Cambridge, The Socratics' Sparta And Rousseau's Archived 28 June 2006 at the Wayback Machine Institute of Historical Research
- ^ a b Robinson, 1997, pp. 24–5
- ^ a b Thorley, 1996, p. 2
- ^ a b Dunn, 2006, p. 13
- ^ Robinson, 1997, pp. 16–17
- OCLC 286488039.
- ^ Jacobsen, 1943, pp. 159–172
- ^ Isakhan, B. (2007). Engaging "Primitive Democracy," Mideast Roots of Collective Governance. Middle East Policy, 14(3), 97–117.
- ^ Bailkey, 1967, pp. 1211–1236
- ^ Robinson, 1997, p. 20
- ^ Diodorus 2.39
- ^ Larsen, 1973, pp. 45–46
- ^ de Sainte, 2006, pp. 321–3
- ^ Robinson, 1997, p. 22
- ^ Robinson, 1997, p. 23
- ISBN 978-0-520-24225-8. Retrieved 28 October 2013.
- ^ Raychaudhuri Hemchandra (1972), Political History of Ancient India, Calcutta: University of Calcutta, p.107
- ^ Republics in ancient India. Brill Archive. pp. 93–. GGKEY:HYY6LT5CFT0.
- ^ a b Bongard-Levin, 1996, pp. 61–106
- ^ a b Sharma 1968, pp. 109–22
- ^ Trautmann T. R., Kautilya and the Arthashastra, Leiden 1971
- ^ Ostwald 2000, pp. 21–25
- ^ Cartledge 2001, p. xii, 276
- ^ Plato, Laws, 712e-d
- ^ a b Aristotle, Politics, 1294b
- ^ Pomeroy, 1999, pp. 149–153
- ^ Buckley, 1996, p. 76
- ^ Rhodes 1981, pp. 498–502
- ^ Lycurgus Encyclopædia Britannica Online
- ^ Raaflaud 2007, p. 37
- ^ Buckley, 1996, pp. 65–85
- ^ Pomeroy, 1999, p. 143
- ^ Pomeroy, 1999, p. 152
- ^ Raaflaub 2007, pp. 40–1
- ^ Luciano Canfora, La democrazias:Storia di un'ideologia, Laterza (2004) 2018 pp.12-13
- ^ Pomeroy, 1999, pp. 159–164
- ^ Raaflaub, 2007, p. 50
- ^ Raaflaub, 2007, p. 51
- ^ Pomeroy, 1999, pp. 164–5
- ^ a b c Solon, Encyclopædia Britannica Online
- ^ Robinson, 2003, pp. 54–5, 76–98
- ^ Raaflaub, 2007, pp. 60–8
- ^ Robinson, 2003, p. 76
- ^ Raaflaub, 2007, pp. 67–72
- ^ Peisistratus Encyclopædia Britannica Online
- ^ a b Cleisthenes Of Athens Encyclopædia Britannica Online
- ^ Buckley, 1996, pp. 138–140
- ^ Raaflaub, 2007, p. 77
- ^ Raaflaub, 2007 pp. 144–9
- ^ Ober, 2008, p. 63
- ^ Raaflaub, 2008, p. 140
- ^ Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War, 2.37.2–3
- ISBN 978-0-631-18017-3– via Internet Archive.
- ISBN 978-0-275-96702-4.
- ^ The exception was the Boule of 500, where the poor could refuse to serve.
- ^ "Boule: ancient Greek council". Britannica.com. Retrieved 4 September 2023.
- ^ Powell, 2001, pp. 300–4
- ^ Raaflaub, 2007, p. 5
- ISBN 978-0-7538-0815-3.
- ^ "Aristotle, Politics, Book 6, section 1317b". www.perseus.tufts.edu.
- ^ Plato, Republic
- ^ Aristotle, Politics
- ^ Hansen, (1992), pp. 14–30
- ^ Ober, 1996, pp. 15–6
- ^ Watson, 2005, p. 285
- ^ Livy, 2002, p. 34
- ^ Watson, 2005, p. 271
- ^ a b Livy, 2002, p. 23
- ^ a b Durant, 1942, p. 23
- ^ This view was already ancient when Polybius brought it to bear on Rome (Walbank 2002: 281).
- ^ Balot, 2009, p. 194
- ^ a b c d Balot, 2009, p. 216
- ^ a b Liv 1.43.11
- ^ Dion. Ant. Rom. 4.20.5
- ^ Polyb. 6.51
- ^ Balot, 2009, pp. 164–5
- ^ Balot, 2009, p. 176
- ^ Gibbon The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters XLIX, LII; pp. 1685,1857 Heritage Club edition (1946). For a recent view, see David Nicolle; Carolingian cavalryman, AD 768–987, p. 45 ff. Intermediate sources tend to be colored by the "Free institutions of our Germanic ancestors" meme.
- ISBN 9788472837508.
- Njal's Saga, tr. Magnus Magnusson, introduction.
- ^ "Storia del Parlamento". Il Parlamento (in Italian). Archived from the original on 11 December 2015. Retrieved 6 February 2023.
- ^ Enzo Gancitano, Mazara dopo i Musulmani fino alle Signorie - Dal Vescovado all'Inquisizione, Angelo Mazzotta Editore, 2001, p. 30.
- ISBN 0-907151-02-7
- ^ US Library of Congress. Archived from the originalon 9 January 2009.
- ISBN 0-905743-63-6
- ^ Kasper, M. Baskische Geschichte Primus: 1997
- ^ "Origins and growth of Parliament". The National Archives. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
- ^ "Citizen or Subject?". The National Archives. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
- ^ ISBN 0-449-90496-2.
- ^ ISBN 1-56000-745-1.
- ^ "Democracy Has Existed in the Americas Longer Than We Thought". Observer. 20 March 2017. Retrieved 10 August 2021.
- ^ "Professor Norman Davies on the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth – the Noble Democracy, which deliberately wanted to avoid an Emperor". YouTube. Archived from the original on 13 December 2021.
- ISBN 963-9241-18-0
- ^ "From legal document to public myth: Magna Carta in the 17th century". The British Library. Retrieved 16 October 2017; "Magna Carta: Magna Carta in the 17th Century". The Society of Antiquaries of London. Archived from the original on 25 September 2018. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
- ^ "Charles I and the Petition of Right". UK Parliament.
- ^ "Britain's unwritten constitution". British Library. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown.... The Bill of Rights (1689) then settled the primacy of Parliament over the monarch's prerogatives, providing for the regular meeting of Parliament, free elections to the Commons, free speech in parliamentary debates, and some basic human rights, most famously freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment'.
- ^ "Citizenship 1625-1789". The National Archives. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
- ^ Dr Andrew Blick and Professor George Jones — No 10 guest historian series, Prime Ministers and No. 10 (1 January 2012). "The Institution of Prime Minister". Government of the United Kingdom: History of Government Blog. Retrieved 15 April 2016.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ISBN 978-1-4008-7826-0.
- ISBN 0-19-820171-0.
- ^ "'Natural Aristocracy' and the U.S. Constitution". National Review. Retrieved 17 January 2018.
- ^ "Equality: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson". press-pubs.uchicago.edu. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
- ^ "Jefferson, Adams, and the Natural Aristocracy". First Things. Retrieved 17 January 2018.
- ISBN 978-0-8386-3500-1.
- ISBN 978-90-474-2393-5.
- ^ "Expansion of Rights and Liberties - The Right of Suffrage". Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom. National Archives. Archived from the original on 6 July 2016. Retrieved 21 April 2015.
- ^ Center for History and New Media, George Mason University (4 February 1794). "Decree of the National Convention of 4 February 1794, Abolishing Slavery in all the Colonies". Retrieved 26 September 2009.
- ISBN 978-0-8020-7402-7– via Internet Archive.
- ^ Belinda Havenga Université of Prétoria. "The restructuring of local government in south africa: a historical perspective up to 1994, chap.4 de 'The restructuring of local government with specific reference to the city of Tshwane'". pp. 4–93.
- ^ French National Assembly. "1848 " Désormais le bulletin de vote doit remplacer le fusil "" (in French). Retrieved 26 September 2009.
- ^ Stanley L. Engerman; Kenneth L. Sokoloff (February 2005). "The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World" (PDF). pp. 16, 35.
By 1840, only three states retained a property qualification, North Carolina (for some state-wide offices only), Rhode Island, and Virginia. In 1856 North Carolina was the last state to end the practice. Tax-paying qualifications were also gone in all but a few states by the Civil War, but they survived into the 20th century in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
- ISBN 978-1-111-83717-4.
- ISBN 978-0-521-65701-3.
- ^ Rummel 1997, p. 257. "A current list of liberal democracies includes: Andorra, Argentina, ..., Cyprus, ..., Israel, ..."
- ^ "Global Survey 2006: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in Freedom". Freedom House (2005-12-19). Retrieved on 2007-07-01.
- ^ "How the Westminster Parliamentary System was exported around the World". University of Cambridge. 2 December 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2013.
- ^ Freedom House. 1999. "Democracy's Century: A Survey of Global Political Change in the 20th Century." Archived 18 August 2000 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Deeks, Ashley; Burton, Matthew (2007). "Iraq's Constitution: A Drafting History". Cornell International Law Journal. 40 (1): 1–88. Retrieved 19 February 2018.
- ^ Régis Marzin. "2016, année des coups d'Etat électoraux en Afrique et démocratisation de l'Afrique depuis 1990- 27 avril 2017". regardexcentrique.wordpress.com.
- ^
Adams, Brad (2019). "Cambodia's Dirty Dozen: A Long History of Rights Abuses by Hun Sen's Generals". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
[...] an abusive and authoritarian political regime over which an increasingly dictatorial Hun Sen rules.
- ^
Compare:
Un, Kheang (2019). Cambodia: Return to Authoritarianism. Elements in Politics and Society in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-61286-9. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
Given Hun Sen's domination over Cambodian politics, some analysts suggest that Cambodia is a personalist dictatorship. [...] Although Hun Sen wields decisive power on many issues, there are key signs suggesting that the current regime in Cambodia is not a personalist dictatorship.
- S2CID 225207244.
- ^ Nazifa Alizada, Rowan Cole, Lisa Gastaldi, Sandra Grahn, Sebastian Hellmeier, Palina Kolvani, Jean Lachapelle, Anna Lührmann, Seraphine F. Maerz, Shreeya Pillai, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2021. Autocratization Turns Viral. Democracy Report 2021. University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf Archived 14 September 2021 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "MaxRange". www.hh.se. Archived from the original on 17 August 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
- ^ "What's Driving the Rise of Authoritarianism and Populism in Europe and Beyond?". www.worldpoliticsreview.com. Retrieved 26 April 2021.
- ^ "Authoritarian regimes prevailing over democracies across the world". Nikkei Asia. Retrieved 26 April 2021.
- .
- S2CID 212974380.
- ^ "Global overview of COVID-19: Impact on elections". www.idea.int. Retrieved 28 January 2021.
- ^ Repucci, Sarah; Slipowitz, Amy. "Democracy under Lockdown". Freedom House. Retrieved 28 January 2021.
- ^ Democracy Facing Global Challenges: V-Dem Annual Democracy Report 2019 (PDF) (Report). V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg. May 2019. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 June 2019. Retrieved 26 April 2021.
- OCLC 1155487679.
- ^ Farrell, Henry (14 August 2020). "History tells us there are four key threats to U.S. democracy". The Washington Post.
- ^ Lieberman, By Suzanne Mettler and Robert C. (10 August 2020). "The Fragile Republic". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 15 August 2020.
- S2CID 242013001.
- .XLSX), by Freedom House
- ^ "Age of democracies at the end of 2015". Our World in Data. Archived from the original on 15 February 2020. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
- ^ "Mapped: The world's oldest democracies". World Economic Forum. 8 August 2019. Retrieved 7 November 2022.
- ^ Strauss, 1994, p. 32
- ^ Cartledge, 1994, p. 27
- ^ Ober, 1996, p. 107
- ^ "The Federalist #10". constitution.org.
- ^ "The Federalist #51". constitution.org.
General sources
Primary sources
- Aristotle (1912). Wikisource. . Translated by William Ellis – via
- Diodorus Siculus (1814). Wikisource. . Translated by G. Booth – via
- Plato. Benjamin Jowett – via Wikisource. . Translated by
- Livy (1905). Wikisource. . Translated by Rev. Canon Roberts – via
Print sources
- Balot, R. K. (2009). A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 978-1-4051-5143-6.
- Bongard-Levin, G. M. (1986). A complex study of Ancient India. South Asia Books. ISBN 81-202-0141-8.
- Buckley, T. (1996). Aspects of Greek History 750–323 BC: A Source-based Approach. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09958-7.
- Cartledge, Paul (2003). Spartan reflections. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23124-4.
- Crawford, Michael (1974). Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge University Press.
- Clarke, P.; Foweraker, J. (2001). Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-415-19396-6.
- Dahl, R.; Shapiro, I.; Cheibub, C. A. (2003). The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-54147-5.
- Dunn, J. (1994). Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC – 1993 AD. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-827934-5.
- Dunn, J. (2006). Democracy: a history. Atlantic Monthly Press. ISBN 0-87113-931-6.
- Durant, W. (1942). The Story of Civilization. Simon and Schuster.
- Heideking, J.; Henretta, J. A.; Becker, P. (2002). Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750–1850. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80066-8.
- Keane, J. (2004). Violence and Democracy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-54544-7.
- Keyssar, A. (2001). The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02969-8.
- Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07893-5.
- Livy; De Sélincourt, A.; Ogilvie, R. M.; Oakley, S. P. (2002). The early history of Rome: books I-V of The history of Rome from its foundations. Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-14-044809-8.
- Macpherson, C. B. (1977). The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-289106-5.
- Manglapus, R. S. (1987). Will of the People: Original Democracy in Non-Western Societies. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-25837-6.
- Ober, J.; Hedrick, C. W. (1996). Dēmokratia: a conversation on democracies, ancient and modern. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01108-7.
- Ober, J. (2008). Democracy and knowledge: innovation and learning in classical Athens. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13347-8.
- Ostwald, M. (2000). Oligarchia: The Development of a Constitutional Form in Ancient Greece. Franz Steiner Verlag. ISBN 3-515-07680-8.
- Pomeroy, S. B.; Burstein, S. M.; Donlan, W.; Roberts, J. T. (1999). Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509742-4.
- Powell, A. (2001). Athens and Sparta: Constructing Greek Political and Social History from 478 BC. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-26280-1.
- Raaflaub, K. A.; Ober, J.; Wallace, R. W. (2007). Origin of Democracy in Ancient Greece. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24562-4.
- Robinson, E. W. (1997). The First Democracies: Early Popular Government Outside Athens. Franz Steiner Verlag. ISBN 3-515-06951-8.
- Robinson, E. W. (2003). Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings and Sources. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-23394-6.
- de Sainte, C. G. E. M. (2006). The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-1442-3.
- Sharma, J. P. (1968). Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass.
- Thorley, J. (1996). Athenian Democracy. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12967-2.
Journals
- Bailkey, N. (July 1967). "Early Mesopotamian Constitutional Development". American Historical Review. 72 (4): 1211–1236. JSTOR 1847791.
- Cartledge, P. (April 1994). "Ancient Greeks and Modern Britons". History Today. 44 (4): 27.
- Hansen, M. H. (April 1992). "The Tradition of the Athenian Democracy A. D. 1750–1990". Greece & Rome. 39 (1): 14–30. JSTOR 643118.
- Jacobsen, T. (July 1943). "Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia". Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 2 (3): 159–172. S2CID 162148036.
- Larsen, J. A. O. (January 1973). "Demokratia". Classical Philology. 68 (1): 45–46. S2CID 224791063.
- Lipset, S. M. (March 1959). "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy". The American Political Science Review. 53 (1): 69–105. S2CID 53686238.
- Muhlberger, S.; Paine, P. (Spring 1993). "Democracy's Place in World History". Journal of World History. 4 (1): 23–45. JSTOR 20078545.
- Strauss, B. (April 1994). "American Democracy Through Ancient Greek Eyes". History Today. 44 (4): 32.
- Rhodes, P. J. (1981). "The Selection of Ephors at Sparta". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 30 (4): 498–502. JSTOR 4435780.
- Weingast, B. (June 1997). "The Political Foundations of the Rule of Law and Democracy". The American Political Science Review. 91 (2): 245–263. S2CID 144556293.
Further reading
- Graeber, David; ISBN 978-0-374-15735-7.[relevant?]
- Kaplan, Temma. Democracy: A World History (Oxford University Press, 2014)
- Charles, T. (2004). Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650–2000. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-53713-4.[relevant?]
- Corrin, J. P. (2002). Catholic Intellectuals and the Challenge of Democracy. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 0-268-02271-2.[relevant?]
- Diamond, L.; Plattner, M. (1996). The Global Resurgence of Democracy. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-5305-2.
- Markoff, J. (1996). Waves of Democracy. Pine Forge Press. ISBN 0-8039-9019-7.
- Putnam, R.; Leonardi, R.; Nanetti, R. Y. (1994). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03738-8.[relevant?]
- Wood, G. S. (1993). The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage Books. ISBN 0-679-73688-3.[relevant?]
- Vanhanen, T. (1984). The Emergence of Democracy: A comparative study of 119 states, 1850–1979. Societas Scientiarum Fennica. ISBN 951-653-122-9.[relevant?]