Mediaboss Marketing

A democracy is a form of government in which the leaders are chosen by the citizens votes, and in which the people have a say in decisions about the states affairs. The primary characteristics of democracy include political freedom, rule of law, and legal equality. In order for these principles to be authentic, every eligible citizen must have equal access to the legislative process, and the legal system. To explore this concept, consider the following democracy definition.

Noun

Origin

1525-1535 Middle French dmocratie

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. A democratic government contrasts with forms of government in which the power is wielded by a single individual, or a small number of privileged individuals, such as a monarchy, oligarchy, or dictatorship.

In modern times, the concept of democracy is often misunderstood. The terms freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing at all. While democracy is a set of fundamental beliefs and principles of freedom, it differentiates from freedom, in that it involves the implementation of procedures and practices to ensure freedom. Most governments in todays world are a mixture of governmental methods.

While most Americans consider their nation to be ruled by a democratic government, the truth is, the U.S. operates as a Constitutional Federal Republic. This means that, while Americans embrace democracy, the actual operating of the country is complex. Because individual states retain a great deal of autonomy, a written constitution is necessary to define the authority, responsibilities, and limitations of the federal government, and its relationship with the states.

In the U.S., the power remains with the people, both on the state and federal levels, as they elect representatives through the voting process. While this is commonly thought of as a true democracy, that would require the people to have direct control over legislation. Instead, U.S. citizens participate in the legislative process only through their elected representatives. This is where the term representative democracy originates.

A direct democracy is a form of government in which all laws are created or abolished by a direct vote of the citizens. This would mean that everything from a change in speed limit on the state highways, to the guilt or innocence of someone being tried for a crime, would be put to a direct vote by the people, rather than their representatives.

Many Americans dont give a lot of thought to the large number of representatives at various levels of government who make decisions on their behalf every single day. From state and federal senators and representatives, who make laws for their constituents, to elected judges and other government officials, the great wheel of the nation runs by the actions of these representatives.

Imagine what todays society would look like if the United States operated as a true democracy, requiring the people to take time out on a regular basis to vote on every important decision to be made. It is likely that todays complex society could never have evolved had this time commitment be required of the nations citizens.

In ancient Athens (about 508-322 B.C.), all citizens voted on all major issues. Athenian citizens were actively involved in all aspects of political life, from voting on the operation of the city, to the trying of all crimes. In fact, in every court case, the assembled citizens voted to determine the outcome. In this example of democracy, it may be true that a direct democracy breeds more political participation. However, the reality of the commitment involved in such an undertaking may deter a great many people in modern times.

Direct Democracy Now! is not a reference to democracy in todays world, but a grass roots organization of ordinary Greek citizens who were actively involved in Greek protests over the organization of their government, in 2011. Direct Democracy Now! Found they could no longer support any of Greeces traditional political parties. The movement is not a political party, but operates as a forum for members to exchange ideas on the political situation in Greece.

A system that works for many nations is the representative democracy, which allows the nations citizens to be involved in the workings of government, without the heavy burden of needing to make daily decisions in its operations. In a representative democracy, all eligible citizens of the nation elect representatives to enact laws, create legislation, and judge legal complaints.

Also known as indirect democracy, or representative republic, many consider the representative democracy to have been born of the French and American revolutions, in the 18th century. As chaos and brutality flowed from the lack of a central government in medieval times, the people sought refuge from pervasive death and destruction. The stronger people provided such protection for the weaker people, in exchange for their labor and allegiance. This was the rise of the kings.

As time went by, the people began to feel oppressed, as many were kept in squalor, with little food or other necessities of life. Poor housing and filthy conditions bred disease and death. The people questioned the kings right to rule them, especially in such a manner. In the 18th century, English philosopher John Locke held that a kings right to rule came only from the consent of the governed.

French political philosopher Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron Montesquieu, commonly known simply as Montesquieu, was the first to describe a system in which three separate branches of government executive, legislative, and judicial kept one another in check. In his example of democracy and freedom, Montesquieu wrote:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor. There would be an end to every thing, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and that of judging the crimes or differences of individuals

By this notion, both communities and nations would be most honorably governed by the majority will of the people. This advanced the idea that, while rule of law is imperative to a peaceful and harmonious society, individual freedoms should not be sacrificed to a monarch.

A parliamentary democracy is a form of government in which citizens elect the ruling body, referred as a parliament, by popular vote in a democratic election. The members of parliament then appoint a leader, known as a prime minister, who then chooses members of parliament for his cabinet. Parliament, and the prime minister, remain answerable to the people.

Because the prime minister remains a member of parliament, even while he serves in this elevated role, he is able to draft legislation himself, submitting it to parliament for approval. This further differentiates parliamentary democracy from the representative democracy used in the U.S., as the President is no longer part of the legislative body, but is set apart in the executive branch of government. Parliamentary democracy has its origins in Britain, where it is still in effect today. Many of Britains former colonies have adopted some form of parliamentary democracy.

In May, 2016, Arizona voters approved Proposition 123, by the skin of their teeth. With 51 percent voting yes, and 49 percent voting no, the state was set to infuse an additional $3.5 billion into Arizonas K-12 public schools over the next 10 years. Opponents of Prop 123 didnt give up when the people exercised their democratic right to have the final say on issues put up for popular vote.

Raising concerns over the source of the additional funding for the school systems, the states land trust fund, Arizona resident Michael Pierce filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that the funding plan violates the states Enabling Act. Pierce claims that the state needs congressional approval in order to increase the amount of monies paid out of the land trust.

Many citizens of the state are concerned about the legitimacy of the lawsuit, pointing out that having the people vote on an issue is supposed to be giving them the final say. In this example of democracy, to ask the courts to intervene when one is unhappy with the outcome of any election is seen by many to be a slap in the face of democracy.

See the rest here:
Democracy - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

The value of democracy

Why should the people rule? Is democracy really superior to any other form of government? Although a full exploration of this issue is beyond the scope of this article (see political philosophy), historyparticularly 20th-century history demonstrates that democracy uniquely possesses a number of features that most people, whatever their basic political beliefs, would consider desirable: (1) democracy helps to prevent rule by cruel and vicious autocrats; (2) modern representative democracies do not fight wars with one another; (3) countries with democratic governments tend to be more prosperous than countries with nondemocratic governments; and (4) democracy tends to foster human developmentas measured by health, education, personal income, and other indicatorsmore fully than other forms of government do. Other features of democracy also would be considered desirable by most people, though some would regard them as less important than features 1 through 4 above: (5) democracy helps people to protect their fundamental interests; (6) democracy guarantees its citizens fundamental rights that nondemocratic systems do not, and cannot, grant; and (7) democracy ensures its citizens a broader range of personal freedoms than other forms of government do. Finally, there are some features of democracy that some peoplethe critics of democracywould not consider desirable at all, though most people, upon reflection, would regard them as at least worthwhile: (8) only democracy provides people with a maximum opportunity to live under laws of their own choosing; (9) only democracy provides people with a maximum opportunity to take moral responsibility for their choices and decisions about government policies; and (10) only in a democracy can there be a relatively high level of political equality.

These advantages notwithstanding, there have been critics of democracy since ancient times. Perhaps the most enduring of their charges is that most people are incapable of participating in government in a meaningful or competent way because they lack the necessary knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, experience, or character. Thus Plato, as noted above, argued that the best government would be an aristocracy of philosopher-kings whose rigorous intellectual and moral training would make them uniquely qualified to rule. The view that the people as a whole are incapable of governing themselves has been espoused not only by kings and aristocratic rulers but also by political theorists (Plato foremost among them), religious leaders, and other authorities. The view was prevalent in one form or another throughout the world during most of recorded history until the early 20th century, and since then it has been most often invoked by opponents of democracy in Europe and elsewhere to justify various forms of dictatorship and one-party rule.

No doubt there will be critics of democracy for as long as democratic governments exist. The extent of their success in winning adherents and promoting the creation of nondemocratic regimes will depend on how well democratic governments meet the new challenges and crises that are all but certain to occur.

At the beginning of the 21st century, democracy faced a number of challenges, some of which had been problems of long standing, others of which were of more recent origin.

Although decentralized market economies encouraged the spread of democracy, in countries where they were not sufficiently regulated such economies eventually produced large inequalities in economic and social resources, from wealth and income to education and social status (see income inequality). Because those with greater resources naturally tended to use them to influence the political system to their advantage, the existence of such inequalities constituted a persistent obstacle to the achievement of a satisfactory level of political equality. This challenge was magnified during regularly occurring economic downturns, when poverty and unemployment tended to increase.

After World War II, immigration to the countries of western Europe, Australia, and the United States, both legal and illegal, increased dramatically. Seeking to escape poverty or oppression in their homelands and usually lacking education, immigrants primarily from the developing world typically took menial jobs in service industries or agriculture. Differences in language, culture, and appearance between immigrant groups and the citizens of the host country, as well as the usually widespread perception that immigrants take jobs away from citizens and use expensive social services, made immigration a hotly debated issue in many countries. In some instances, anti-immigrant sentiment contributed to the emergence or growth of radical political parties and movements, such as the National Front in France, The Republicans in Germany, the militia movement and various white supremacist groups in the United States, and the skinhead movement in the United States and Britain. Some of these organizations promoted racist or neofascist doctrines that were hostile not only to immigrants but also to fundamental political and human rights and even to democracy itself. In the early 21st century, anti-immigrant sentiment fueled a revival of chauvinistic parties and movements in western Europe and contributed to the electoral victory of U.S. presidential candidate Donald J. Trump in 2016.

Acts of terrorism committed within democratic countries or against their interests in other parts of the world occurred with increasing frequency beginning in the 1970s. In the United States remarkably few terrorist attacks had taken place before the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. The deadliest single act of terrorism anywhere, the September 11 attacks of 2001, destroyed the World Trade Center and killed some 3,000 people, mainly in New York City and Washington, D.C.

In response to such events and especially in the wake of the September 11 attacks, democratic governments adopted various measures designed to enhance the ability of police and other law-enforcement agencies to protect their countries against terrorism. Some of these initiatives entailed new restrictions on citizens civil and political liberties and were accordingly criticized as unconstitutional or otherwise inconsistent with democratic principles. In the early 21st century it remained to be seen whether democratic governments could strike a satisfactory balance between the sometimes conflicting imperatives of ensuring security and preserving democracy.

At the end of the 18th century, in response to the dilemma of size described earlier, the focus of both the theory and the practice of democracy shifted from the small association of the city-state to the far larger nation-state. Although their increased size enabled democracies to solve more of the problems they confronted, there remained some problems that not even the largest democracy could solve by itself. To address these problems several international organizations were established after World War II, most notably the United Nations (1945), and their numbers and responsibilities grew rapidly through the rest of the 20th century.

These organizations posed two related challenges to democracy. First, by shifting ultimate control of a countrys policies in a certain area to the international level, they reduced to a corresponding extent the influence that citizens could exert on such policies through democratic means. Second, all international organizations, even those that were formally accountable to national governments, lacked the political institutions of representative democracy. How could these institutions be made democraticor at least more democratic?

In their effort at the beginning of the 21st century to forge a constitution for the new European Union (EU)eventually abandoned in favour of the Lisbon Treaty (2007)and in their ongoing struggle with opponents of the EU (Euroskeptics) in various countries, European leaders faced both of these challenges, as well as most of the fundamental questions posed above (see Fundamental questions). What kind of association is appropriate to a democratic government of Europe? What persons or entities should constitute the European dmos? What political organizations or institutions are needed? Should decisions be made by majority? If so, by what kind of majoritya majority of persons, of countries, of both countries and persons, or of something else? Do all the conditions necessary for satisfactory democratic government exist in this huge and diverse association? If not, would a less democratic system be more desirable?

For many of the countries that made a transition to democracy in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the problems and challenges facing democracy were particularly acute. Obstacles in the path of a successful consolidation of democratic institutions included economic problems such as widespread poverty, unemployment, massive inequalities in income and wealth, rapid inflation, and low or negative rates of economic growth. Countries at low levels of economic development also usually lacked a large middle class and a well-educated population. In many of these countries, the division of the population into antagonistic ethnic, racial, religious, or linguistic groups made it difficult to manage political differences peacefully. In others, extensive government intervention in the economy, along with other factors, resulted in the widespread corruption of government officials. Many countries also lacked an effective legal system, making civil rights highly insecure and allowing for abuse by political elites and criminal elements. In these countries the idea of the rule of law was not well established in the prevailing political culture, in some cases because of constant warfare or long years of authoritarian rule. In other respects the political culture of these countries did not inculcate in citizens the kinds of beliefs and values that could support democratic institutions and practices during crises or even during the ordinary conflicts of political life.

In light of these circumstances, it is quite possible that the extraordinary pace of democratization begun in the 20th century will not continue long into the 21st century. In some countries, authoritarian systems probably will remain in place. In some countries that have made the transition to democracy, new democratic institutions probably will remain weak and fragile. Other countries might lose their democratic governments and revert to some form of authoritarian rule.

Yet, despite these adversities, the odds are great that in the foreseeable future a very large share of the worlds population, in a very large share of the worlds countries, will live under democratic forms of government that continue to evolve in order to meet challenges both old and new.

See the original post:
Democracy - The value of democracy | Britannica.com

A democracy has four major pillars consisting of a law, the safeguard of human rights, participation of the citizens and fair elections to choose and replace the body of government.

In a direct democracy, any an all citizens may act directly to enact public policy without the intermediary step of an elected official. In practice, this is only practical when applied to smaller groups of people. A working group, for example, may be based on this type of direct democracy.

In a representative democracy, the will of the people is to be enacted by elected officials. Free elections, the involvement of the public in all aspects of civic life, upholding human rights and the equal application of law to all citizens are cornerstones of democratic societies.

Democracy, being based on elections, is based on the notion of majority rules. What the majority of citizens vote for should be enacted. Majority rules, however, should never mean that the minority is oppressed and so most democratic states also have a constitution which enshrines the rights of all citizens, including minorities. These are called constitutional democracies, and include most of the democratic countries in the modern world.

A presidential democracy is a type of government where a president is elected by the people in a free election and gains power over the state and government, effectively gaining the majority of executive powers.

A constitutional democracy binds elected representatives to a constitution constraining the powers of officials.

A hybrid democracy uses parts of representative and direct democracies to form participatory democracies. Examples include the U.S. states of California, Vermont, the New England region and the country of Switzerland. The first democracy was a direct democracy performed by the Greek people.

Continued here:
What Is Democracy? | Reference.com

Key Democratic Principles

The word democracy has its origins in the Greek language. It combines two shorter words: demos meaning whole citizen living within a particular city-state and kratos meaning power or rule.

It is generally agreed that liberal democracies are based on four main principles:

See Playing Fair, a website by the Parliamentary Education Office.

A liberal democracy (that is, one that champions the development and well-being of the individual) is organised in such a way as to define and limit power so as to promote legitimate government within a framework of justice and freedom. There are four critical elements to the framework:

A legitimate government is one that has the appropriate mandate/authority to rule. This usually means a high degree of popular support as demonstrated by a free electorate and frequent elections.

Justice is achieved when citizens live in an environment in which all citizens are treated equally and accorded dignity and respect. This may occur in a representative democracy that is tempered by constitutionalism, free elections and restraints on power.

If freedom is to exist, there must be:

In a liberal democracy efforts are made to define and limit power, often by means of a written constitution. Checks and balances, such as the separation of the Parliament, senior government and judicial power, are instituted. In addition, there are conventions of behaviour and a legal system that complements the political system.

There is no absolute definition of democracy. The term is elastic and expands and contracts according to the time, place and circumstances of its use. What follows is a short list of definitions provided by field experts.

But first, what does democracy mean? In Ancient Greece some cities were democracies, others were oligarchies. Democracy meant rule by the people, oligarchy meant rule by the few. So a city was a democracy if:

Rule by the people; democracy implies both popular participation and government in the public interest, and can take a wide variety of forms.

Democracy: A democracy is a society in which the citizens are sovereign and control the government.

The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the peoples vote.

Schumpeter adds that the classical theory of democracy attributed to the electorate an altogether unrealistic degree of initiative which practically amounted to ignoring leadership.

Further, Schumpeter claimed that,

the purpose of democratic method [is] not to select representatives who carry out the will of the people, but to choose individuals who [will] govern on their behalf.

As proposed by Robert Dahl, Schmitter and Karl, and Larry Diamond.

In a direct democracy, such as ancient Athens, all citizens (only adult males who had completed their military training; women, slaves and plebs were not citizens) are invited to participate in all political decisions. This form of democracy is no longer practiced. In this form of democracy citizens are continuously involved in the exercise of power and decision is by majority rule.

In a representative democracy, representatives are elected by the people and entrusted to carry out the business of governance. Australia is a representative democracy.

In a constitutional democracy a constitution outlines who will represent the people and how. Australia is also a constitutional democracy.

Political scientist John Keane suggests that a new form of democracy is evolving in which government is constantly monitored in its exercise of power by a vast array of public and private agencies, commissions and regulatory mechanisms. See Life and Death of Democracy by John Keane, published by Simon and Schuster UK in 2009.

Excerpt from:
Defining democracy Museum of Australian Democracy at Old ...

The Union Members Complete Guide by Michael Mauer, Union Communication Services, Inc. 160 pp. How to Win Past Practice Grievances (Fourth Edition) by Robert Schwartz, Work Rights Press. 75 pp.

The Janus Decision | Albuquerque Teachers Reform Caucus | Carpenter Finds No Recourse

NYC Carpenters In Bylaws Fiasco | Oral Arguments Heard in Beneli Case | Review: Stayin Alive: The 1970s And The Last Days Of The Working Class

In an increasingly complex world, the ability of any one entity to address the very real but often esoteric concerns of any one client is more and more problematic. The fact is the primary experience thatJane and John Q. Public havewith bureaucratic norms and procedures is often one of frustration. Unionists are quite familiar []

AUD is offering a sale, now only $10 dollars, for most of our short sleeve shirts(all color variations but gray). Get them while they last! Open the post and*Click Here*

Union Democracy Advocate Wins Office in Gas Workers 555 Obscure Designation Flummoxes Reform Group in Bakery Workers local In Memoriam: Erwin Baur (1915-2016) Subscribe today for more!

At AUD these days, its getting harder to get the job done. With our skeletal staffing (one almost-full-timer and two almost-part-timers) how do we get the newsletters out and posted to the website, listen to or read carefully all the calls and emails that come in, do the research to address the variety of concerns, []

Meeting Attendance Rule Waived in Utility Workers Local G-555 election | Charges Filed against IBT Secy-Treasurer Ken Hall amid Fraught Teamsters Election | Reflections on the US Election: what explains the Blue Collar vote?

Impediments to Running for Union Office AUD 2017 Conference Union rules that act as impediments to running for office: Are they legal? How can you beat them? AUDs 2017 conference will bring together unionists to discuss the variety of union rules and requirements that can and often do prevent reformers from running for office or []

If the labor movement can learn one thing from the 2016 presidential election, its that there still exists a wide gulf of understanding between this countrys elites (of all stripes) and the common folk. From the very beginning of this election, something was brewing out in Middle America; an insurgency at two opposing poles of []

Read more:
Association for Union Democracy (AUD) is a pro-labor ...