Talk:Democracy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:Todo priority

Archive 1 : Discussion in and before 2002. Topics: Should there be a distinction between a republic and a democracy?, Right to vote denied to prisoners?, Denial of right to vote on basis of race or ethnicity, Participatory Democracy, Direct democracy, Clear and practical examples of participative democracy
Archive 2 : Discussion from 2002 to January 2004. Topics: Origin of democratic system, Confusing paragraphs, 146.124.102.84's POV edits, Constitution, Anon's announcement, Weird edit, Statement removed, Moved paragraph, Sortition, Unencyclopedical quotes?
Archive 3 : Discussion from January to May 2004. Topics: Czaktisto's complaints/change requests, Democracy, Democracy and franchise, Democracy definition, Proposed refactoring, Direct Democracy
Archive 4 : Lengthy discussion in May-June 2004 about controversial parts of the article
Archive 5 : Discussion from June to September 2004.
Archive 6 : Discussion from October to December 2004.
Archive 7 : Discussion from all of 2005.
Archive 8 : Discussion from 2005 to 8 May 2006
Archive 9 : Discussion from 8 May 2006 to 25 August

"The democratic state" section

"Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):

A demos—a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure—must exist. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the adult portion of the nation, and adult citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.
A territory must be present, where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic by themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.
A decision-making procedure exists, which is either direct, in instances such as a referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a parliament.
The procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state, its government and courts, which go against personal choices or interests.
The procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
In the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result."

Much of this section seems to be a discussion of the characteristics of states, not democracy. All states, democratic or not, must have a terriotory, be sovereign, have citizens, have a decision-making procedure, and be able to enforce decisions in its territory. As such, I think that it should be removed or remade.Ultramarine 00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy and dictatorship

"Even a dictatorship may be a democracy if the ruler is elected in fair and competitive elections. Some dictatorships claim to be democracies, but in reality hold "sham elections."

This is contradictory and a dictatorship is not democratic. Can you give an example of dictatorship which is a democracy? Ultramarine 02:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of an illiberal democracy? If people are not allowed civil rights, as long as elections are free and competitive it's still a democracy. As long as the dictator is freely elected, it's a democracy. BillyBoom 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many would dispute that this is a real democracy since in reality the people do not rule. Democracy is not the same as elections, see for example direct democracy or sortition in Athens.Ultramarine 02:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the leader is freely elected, is a sufficient condition of democracy. "The people rule" is only the case in direct democracy. In any other kind of democracy the elected officials rule. BillyBoom 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not for example with sortition which was also used in Athens. No electins but leaders. The problem is that there have been many different systems claiming to be "democratic". For example, the Communist states claimed to be democratic according to "democratic centralism". It is not really for Wikipedia to decide which definiton the correct one, only to report the different views.Ultramarine 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's not the case for Wikipedia to decide. We can't claim that Communist states are democracies any more than we can claim that they're not. We can say they call themselves democracies but we can't say that they are democracies, unless we can find a consensus of sources that says they are. BillyBoom 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I propse this:

Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The methods by which this form of government is exercised, and indeed the composition of "the people" differ for the various forms of democracy, but the general principle is that of majority rule. Useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.

The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used in different contexts and discussions. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming to be democratic have ranged from very broadly based institutions in which adult universal suffrage is used to elect representative, to very informal assemblies in which the people voice their opinions, and leader act upon those feelings, to elected representatives who have limited power under an unelected monarch, to systems randomly selecting leaders from the population, to systems seeking consensus, and even what is usually seen as de facto dictatorships which may claim to be democratic and hold sham elections to gain legitimacy (for example, the former German Democratic Republic).Ultramarine 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of risking either of us doing any original research, I suggest we use sourced definitions. How about that? BillyBoom 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these various form are easily verified: See the articles on direct democracy, allotment, deliberative democracy, and German Democratic Republic.Ultramarine 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it is too much original research if we go through and pick out the common theme that runs throughout each form of democracy. For example, you said yourself that if there is a dictator that it can't be a democracy. I disagree, because according to the definition of liberal democracy, all that is required is that the ruler is elected. We can argue forever about what a democracy and even if we both agree, it is still not good enough. Wikipedia is about more than consensus. It's about consensus about what the sources say. Consensus that can't be sourced is original research. BillyBoom 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is not about consensus about what the sources say. It is about showing all significant views. So we should mention all those views regarding what democracy is without claiming that we know which one is the correct andf the "true" definiton.Ultramarine 02:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed about consensus about what the sources say. You don't understand what I said. That's not the same thing a saying that Wikipedia is about consensus about what the consensus of the sources is. I agree that all significant views should be presented. But the only way to know if they're significant is to consult sources. And the way to present a definition is for us to arrive at a consensus interpretation of what the sources say. I'm saying consensus is not enough. Original research is still original research, even if there is a consensus of Wikipedians that want to put it in the article. BillyBoom 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."Ultramarine 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand what I said. It looks like you think I'm saying to present only one definition. That's not what I'm saying. Present one, two, or ten even. All I'm saying is that they can't be original research. They need to be sourced. Us arriving at a consensus on how to define define democracy is not good enough. Original research is still original research, even if we have a consensus. We need sources. BillyBoom 02:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the different forms of democracy I have described above are original research. They can be easily verified, for example, by the links the articles I mentioned above.Ultramarine 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your definition: "the general principle is that of majority rule." All I'm saying is it should be sourced. It could be original research. BillyBoom 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can, maybe, remove that sentence.Ultramarine 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to have a definition(s) to head off the article. BillyBoom 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note however, that it was Greeks who created the term democracy and contrasted it with oligarchy and autocracy.Ultramarine 02:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]