what makes a Nation a democracy?

The Fool said:
I agree that its more than free and fair elections which I lump into a category I like to simply call "equality", in this case...one citizen one vote (or one value) in the election of the executive. The other main structural thing I look for is separation of power, checks and balances. where power is separated between executive legislative and judicial branches. In Australia the distinction between executive and legislative is not as defined as some democracies because our executive is spawned from our legislative who get together and decide who is in the executive after the election is over. We do, however, place great emphasis on an independent judiciary. Equality of citizens under the law is one of the things that we leave to them to enforce.
Click to expand...

I agree with the above. The distinction between executive and legislative is blurred in many countries, I think. In Holland, most legislative proposals actually come from the executive, and Parliament votes on them - after some amendments. Parliament itself has the power to propose laws, but those are few and far in between the government's law proposals. I think most (European) parliamentary systems work that way in practice.

As to what makes a stable and blossoming democracy, I think an essential component is what is called civil society: basically all those ways in which private citizens engage in shaping their society beyond just trying to earn their daily bread.
 
The Fool said:
Much is made of the need to advance democracy or bring democracy to populations that do not have it.

It is my view that among some other minimum requirements no citizens should be discriminated against by law on the basis of their race, religion, ethnic group, or gender.

Is is generally agreed that this is required for a nation to be called a democracy?

What are the minimum requirements a nation should meet to call itself a democracy?
Click to expand...


Well I suppose it depends what you mean by democracy. If you want to be literal, any state becomes a democracy as soon as sovereign power is controlled by the citizens via either direct democracy or a representative government which is elected by said citizens.

The problem is, there's really no different, in strict terms, between "democracy" and "mob rule". All of the other nice little innovations that have been presented in this thread really just make you a "better" democracy, they don't define your democratic status. The question then becomes, where upon the line of "better" democracy do you consider "true democracy" to lie?

Personally, I wouldn't consider the key minimum features of a "true democracy" to be:

1) Universal suffrage of the adult population
2) Independent Judiciary, Executive and Legislature
3) A free and independent press
4) Some form of binding article that preserves and protects the rights of all individuals

By this definition "true democracy" is a decidedly recent invention (New Zealand was the first nation to grant universal suffrage of the adult population in 1893).

Obviously even this definition has its own problems... how does one measure the independence of the branches of government? How do you measure how free and independent the press is? How do you define adulthood?
 
ddt said:
I agree with the above. The distinction between executive and legislative is blurred in many countries, I think. In Holland, most legislative proposals actually come from the executive, and Parliament votes on them - after some amendments. Parliament itself has the power to propose laws, but those are few and far in between the government's law proposals. I think most (European) parliamentary systems work that way in practice.
Click to expand...

I think you could argue there's more distinct than perhaps you might think. For example in New Zealand the executive is "The Crown" which is a legal entity in its own right, independent of the legislature, which is democratically elected.

This isn't particularly important perhaps when it comes to, say, Ministers of the Crown, who are members of parliament, but it becomes important when you are dealing with other Warranted Officers of the Crown such as the police and officers in the Armed Forces. They hold allegiance to "The Crown" and not to any member of Parliament.

In this way it's theoretically impossible for the Legislature to illegally command the police, military, or other warranted officers, because such warranted officers are duty-bound to reject such illegal directives. Thus this gives independence between the Legislature and the Executive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom