essay questions about democracy

395 Democracy Essay Topics & Research Questions: Elections, American Democracy, and More

What is democracy? The word “democracy” has Greek roots. It combines two words: “demos,” which refers to people residing within a specific country, and “kratos,” which means power. Democracy ensures that all citizens have the same rights regardless of their background, race, religion, or sexual orientation. It also raises people’s sense of civic dignity.

In this article, we’ll explain how to write an essay on democracy and give some helpful tips. Keep reading to find out more.

• 🔝 Top Democracy Essay Topics

📝 Democracy Essay Prompts

• 💡 Democracy Research Questions
• ✍🏻 Democracy Essay Topics
• 🎤 Democracy Speech Topics
• ✅ Essay on Democracy: Outline

🔗 References

🔝 top 12 democracy essay topics.

• Democracy as public justification.
• Freedom and democratic authority.
• What are the main problems with democratic governance?
• The role of democracy in the modern world.
• The development of democracy.
• The influence of democracy on the young generation.
• The connection between human rights and democracy.
• What are the key features of democracy?
• The value of democracy.
• Democracy as collective self-rule.
• The demands of democratic participation.
• Limits to the authority of democracy.

Many students find writing a college essay on democracy to be a stressful task. For this reason, we’ve prepared some essay prompts and tips to help students improve their writing skills.

What Is Democracy: Essay Prompt

Democracy is a form of government that has played an essential role in reshaping societies from monarchical, imperial, and conquest-driven systems into ones founded on sovereignty and harmonious cohabitation principles. Here are some of the questions you can use for your essay:

• What is the definition of democracy?
• Why do we need democracy?
• Where did democracy initially come into existence?
• What distinguishes democracy from other forms of government?
• Why is education important for democracy?
• What is democracy’s primary flaw?
• What poses the most significant risk to democracy?

Disadvantages of Democracy: Essay Prompt

One disadvantage of democracy is that it can sometimes lead to slow decision-making due to the need for consensus and majority agreement. There’s also a risk of overlooking the interests of the minority. Finally, democratic systems can be susceptible to manipulation and misinformation, potentially leading to uninformed or misguided decisions by the electorate. In your essay, you may focus on the following aspects:

• The issue of corruption . A democratic leader is only in power for a limited time. As a result, there’s a tendency to make money through the use of authority.
• Unfair business . Political leaders advocate unfair commercial practices to get support for political campaigns.
• Misuse of media . Often, the media attempts to deceive the public to influence their voting behavior.

Democracy vs. Totalitarianism: Essay Prompt

Totalitarianism and democracy are opposing forms of government. Whereas democracy values equal rights and citizens’ participation in the government, in a totalitarian system, the leader’s word is the law, and the state has all the power. To compare totalitarianism and democracy in your essay, you may discuss these points:

• Origin of totalitarianism and democracy;
• Public opinion on these forms of governance;
• Law and discretion;
• Minority rights and their importance;
• Internal enemies of totalitarianism and democracy.

Capitalism vs Democracy: Essay Prompt

Capitalism and democracy spread throughout the Western world during the 20th century. The fundamental distinction between the two concepts is that democracy is a form of government and a political system, while capitalism is an economic system.

In your essay, you can discuss the following questions:

• What is the connection between capitalism and democracy?
• What are the main goals and values of capitalism/democracy?
• What does capitalism/democracy mean today?
• What are the examples of capitalism/democracy?
• Why is capitalism /democracy harmful?

💡 Research Questions about Democracy

• How does a society’s education level impact the strength of its democratic institutions?
• What role does media freedom play in promoting democratic values?
• Relationship between economic development and political democratization.
• How does income inequality affect the functioning of democratic systems?
• What are the key factors that contribute to the stability of democratic governments?
• How does the level of political participation among citizens influence the quality of democracy?
• Researching the concept of democracy.
• What is the role of political parties in shaping democratic governance?
• How does the use of technology impact democratic processes and decision-making?
• Asian economic development and democratization.
• Does the presence of a strong judiciary contribute to the consolidation of democracy in a country?
• How does the level of trust among citizens affect democratic practices?
• What impact does gender equality have on the strength of democratic institutions?
• The equality of income or wealth depending on democracy.
• How does ethnic diversity influence the stability of democratic governments?
• What role do non-governmental organizations play in promoting democratic values?
• The democratic style of leadership.
• How does government transparency impact citizens’ trust in democratic institutions?
• How does the separation of powers principle contribute to democratic governance?
• What impact do direct democratic mechanisms, such as referendums, have on decision-making processes?
• How do political parties strengthen democracy?
• How does the presence of independent media impact the accountability of political leaders in a democracy?
• What is the role of civil society in ensuring the effectiveness of democratic governance?
• Martin Luther Jr. “Jail Letter” and Aung San Kyi’s democracy excerpt.
• How does the integration of minority communities impact the inclusiveness of democratic systems?
• Does the involvement of citizens in local governance contribute to stronger democratic practices?
• What role does the rule of law play in establishing a democratic society?
• What are the impacts of social media on democracy ?
• What factors contribute to the erosion of democratic norms and values?
• What impact do international agreements have on the promotion and consolidation of democracy?
• Democracy: pluralist theory and elite theory .
• How does the role of money in politics influence the democratic decision-making process?
• What impact do international human rights standards have on protecting citizens’ rights within a democracy?
• What role does decentralization play in promoting democratic governance?
• What is the impact of technology on democracy?
• How does the level of government accountability impact the overall functioning of a democracy?
• What is the relationship between economic development and the sustainability of democratic systems?
• Comparison of democracy levels in Uruguay and Venezuela.
• How does the level of political polarization impact the effectiveness of democratic governance?
• What role do regional and international organizations play in supporting the nascent democracies?
• How does the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches influence democratic decision-making ?
• What are the key challenges faced by young democracies?
• What role does public opinion play in shaping democratic policies?
• Middle East democratization.
• How does the level of political corruption impact the functioning of democratic institutions?
• What impact does globalization have on the democratic governance of nation-states?
• What are the consequences of restrictions on freedom of expression in democratic societies?
• Social media regulation and future of democracy.
• What role do international democracy promotion programs play in supporting democratic transitions?
• How do different cultural and historical contexts shape the understanding and practice of democracy?
• Democracy and Western cultural values worldwide.
• What factors contribute to democratic backsliding in countries that have previously experienced democratic transitions?
• How does the presence of proportional representation contribute to inclusive and representative democratic governance?
• What role do civic education and political literacy play in a democracy?
• How does the level of social media usage impact the spread of disinformation and its effect on democratic processes?
• African political parties’ endeavour for the implementation of the democracy.
• How do citizen participation mechanisms, such as participatory budgeting, impact democratic decision-making?
• How does the level of political party system fragmentation impact the effectiveness of democratic governance?
• What role does the protection of minority rights play in establishing and sustaining democratic societies?
• How does the level of regional integration influence the democratic governance and decision-making of member states?
• The Australian Labor Party and the American Democrats: similarities and differences .
• What impact does income distribution have on citizens’ satisfaction with democratic systems?
• How does the presence of a strong civil service impact the capacity and efficiency of democratic governance?
• What factors contribute to successful democratic transitions in countries with a history of authoritarian rule?
• How does the level of trust in key democratic institutions impact overall democratic stability?
• What factors contribute to economic failure in democracies?
• What role does political leadership play in establishing and maintaining strong democratic systems?

Democracy and Elections Research Paper Topics

• The impact of voter ID laws on democratic participation.
• The influence of campaign finance spending on electoral outcomes.
• Political participation and voting as democracy features.
• The role of social media in shaping public opinion during elections.
• The effectiveness of electoral college systems in representing the will of the people.
• The effectiveness of international election observation missions in ensuring electoral integrity.
• The impact of electronic voting systems on election integrity.
• The role of political advertising in shaping voter preferences.
• Low voter participation in democratic countries.
• The relationship between political polarization and voter turnout.
• The effectiveness of voter education programs in promoting informed decision-making.
• The effect of voter suppression tactics on democratic participation.
• The influence of party endorsement on candidate success in elections.
• The impact of gender and ethnicity on political representation in elected offices.
• Voting: democracy, freedom, and political agency.
• The effectiveness of campaign debates in informing voter choices.
• The influence of social factors and peer networks on political affiliation and voting behavior.
• The effect of negative campaigning on voter perceptions and candidate success.
• The role of non-traditional media sources in shaping public opinion during elections.
• The role of technology in enhancing election monitoring and ensuring transparent and secure voting processes.
• Electoral systems in a democratic country.
• The influence of disinformation campaigns on voter behavior and their implications for electoral integrity.
• The challenges and opportunities of implementing online voting systems for improving accessibility and election integrity.
• The impact of non-voters and their reasons for not participating in the democratic process.
• The impact of campaign advertising on voter behavior in democratic elections.
• The role of social media platforms in electoral outcomes in democratic societies.
• “The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy” by Bouie.
• Electoral reforms and their effects on voter turnout and representation in democracies.
• The influence of demographic factors and socioeconomic status on voting patterns in democratic elections.
• The challenges and opportunities of implementing electronic voting systems to enhance the integrity and efficiency of democratic elections.

E-Democracy Research Topics

• Digital divide and its implications for e-democracy.
• Role of social media in promoting online political engagement.
• E-government and democracy.
• Challenges and opportunities for e-petitions as a form of democratic expression.
• Cybersecurity challenges in ensuring secure and reliable e-voting systems.
• Role of e-democracy in improving representation and inclusivity in decision-making processes.
• Ethical considerations in the collection and use of personal data for e-democracy purposes.
• Use of blockchain technology in enhancing transparency and trustworthiness in e-democracy.
• The use of technology in promoting transparency and accountability in government.
• American e-government and public administration.
• Influences of online political advertising on voter behavior.
• The potential of online deliberative platforms in fostering inclusive public discourse.
• The role of online communities in mobilizing citizens for political action.
• Effects of online platforms on political campaign strategies and communication tactics.
• Use of technology in expanding access to information and knowledge for informed citizenship.
• Strategies for building trust in e-government.
• Evaluation of online political education programs and their impact on citizen engagement.
• Open government initiatives and their role in fostering e-democracy .
• Digital activism and its effectiveness in driving social and political change.
• Online tools for monitoring and preventing disinformation and fake news in political discourse.
• Role of digital identity verification in ensuring the integrity of e-democracy processes.
• Challenges and opportunities for e-democracy in authoritarian regimes.
• Public trust and perceived legitimacy of e-democracy systems and processes.

✍🏻 Topics for Essays about Democracy

Democracy argumentative essay topics.

• The role of public protests in strengthening democracy.
• The role of youth engagement in shaping the future of democracy.
• Is the Democratic Party the Labour Party of the US ?
• Should there be limits on freedom of speech in a democracy to prevent hate speech?
• The tensions between national security and civil liberties in a democratic context.
• Is direct democracy a more effective form of governance than representative democracy?
• The United States is not really a democracy.
• The significance of an independent judiciary in upholding democratic principles.
• The importance of a robust and unbiased public education system for a thriving democracy.
• Compulsory voting: is it compatible with democracy?
• The impact of income inequality on democratic participation and representation.
• The significance of constitutional reforms in addressing the challenges faced by democracies .
• Does the digital age pose a threat to the principles of democracy?
• Should prisoners have a right to vote in a democratic system?
• Are referendums effective tools for democratic decision-making?
• Democracy vs. other types of government .
• Does the media have a responsibility to promote democratic principles and accountability?
• Can a democratic government effectively balance national security and civil liberties?
• Should there be limitations on the freedom of peaceful assembly and protest in a democracy?
• Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
• Is the rise of populist movements a threat to democratic values?
• Does globalization undermine national sovereignty and democratic decision-making?
• Democracy: Durbin’s, Duckworth’s, and Krishinamoorthi’s positions.
• Should judges be elected or appointed in a democratic system?
• Is a strong independent judiciary essential for a healthy democracy?
• Is the EU an example of a successful democratic regional integration project?
• How can we provide political representation for non-citizens in a democratic society?
• Is democracy a universal value, or should different cultures be allowed to adopt different governance models?
• Democracy in the US: is it real today?
• Should democratic governments prioritize economic growth or social welfare policies?
• Should there be restrictions on the power of political parties in a democracy?
• Is there a tension between individual rights and collective decision-making in a democratic society?
• The role of national identity and multiculturalism in shaping democratic societies.
• The effectiveness of citizen initiatives and participatory democracy.
• Federal system’s pros and cons from a democratic perspective.
• The importance of accountability and transparency in ensuring the functioning of democracy.
• Should religion play a role in political decision-making in a democracy?
• Does a two-party system hinder the development of democracy?
• The influence of corporate power on democratic decision-making processes.
• The tension between individual rights and collective needs in democratic societies.
• Has the US government become more of or less of a republic, a confederation, or a democracy?
• The role of education in fostering active and informed citizenry in a democracy.
• Is a multi-party system more conducive to a healthy and inclusive democracy?
• Should there be restrictions on political advertising to ensure fairness and transparency in democratic elections?
• Should corporations have the same rights as individuals in democratic legal systems?
• Is it necessary to separate church and state in a democratic society?
• How democratic was the new Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
• Should there be mandatory civics education to promote democratic values and participation?
• Should there be age restrictions on political officeholders in a democracy?
• Should digital voting be implemented to increase participation and transparency in elections?

American Democracy Essay Topics

• The historical development of American democracy: from the Founding Fathers to the present.
• The significance of the American Constitution and its amendments in ensuring democratic governance in the United States.
• Government: United States Constitution and democracy.
• The impact of the American Revolution on the birth of American democracy.
• The separation of powers and checks and balances in the US government.
• The significance of the Bill of Rights in protecting individual freedoms within American democracy.
• Democracy: the Unites States of America.
• The challenges and opportunities of citizen participation in American democratic processes.
• The contributions of influential figures such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton to the development of American democracy.
• Dahl’s “How Democratic Is the American Constitution?”
• The evolution of political parties in American democracy: from the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to the Democrats and Republicans.
• The role of the Constitution in establishing and safeguarding American democracy.
• The two-party system and democracy in the US.
• The impact of the Civil Rights Movement on expanding democratic rights and equality in America.
• The ways media influences public opinion and its impact on American democracy.
• The influence of money in American politics and its effects on democratic processes.
• American democracy v. the social democracy: the healthcare system.
• The impact of the women’s suffrage movement on democratic participation and gender equality.
• The role of activism and social movements in shaping American democracy .
• The influence of third-party candidates on American democracy and election outcomes.
• Advancing democracy in the United States.
• The challenges and reforms associated with the electoral college system in American democracy.
• The impact of the progressive movement on democratic governance and social welfare.
• Democracy and tyranny in the United States.
• The role of the American presidency in shaping and upholding democratic principles.
• The historical relationship between religious freedom and American democracy.
• The influence of the labor movement on workers’ rights and democratic policies.
• Analysis of democracy in the USA.
• The significance of the New Deal and Great Society programs in fostering economic fairness and democratic values.
• The impact of the Cold War on American democracy and the preservation of democratic ideals abroad.
• Democracy in the United States of America.
• The challenges and reforms associated with campaign finance regulations in American democracy.
• The impact of modern technology on American democracy, including social media, data privacy, and online political engagement.
• Democracy in America: elites, interest groups, and average citizens.
• The significance of presidential debates in shaping public opinion and democratic decision-making.
• The role of state and local governments in American democracy and their relationship with the federal government.
• The impact of the Electoral College on presidential elections and its implications for democratic representation.
• Interest groups in the American democratic system.
• The relationship between media bias and democratic discourse in American democracy.
• The impact of the populist movement, both historically and in contemporary politics, on American democracy.
• The role of the First Amendment in protecting and promoting free speech in American democracy.
• “What Republicans and Democrats Are Doing in the States Where They Have Total Power”: analysis.
• The influence of foreign policy decisions on American democracy and the balance between national security and democratic values.
• American women’s historical struggles and triumphs in achieving suffrage and fighting for equal rights in American democracy.
• The shifting nature of American democracy.
• The impact of the Black Lives Matter movement on public discourse, democratic activism, and policy change.
• The labor movement’s influence on workers’ rights, economic policies, and democratic representation.
• The US democracy’s promotion in the Middle East.
• The significance of federalism in the American democratic system and the balance of power between states and the federal government.
• The importance of a free and independent press in American democracy.
• Democratic traditions in early American colonies.
• The influence of religious groups on American politics, democratic decision-making, and social policy.
• The role of non-governmental organizations in promoting democratic values, human rights, and social justice in America.
• Edmund Morgan: the views of American democracy.
• The protection of minority rights and the principle of majority rule in American democracy.
• The role of civil society organizations in promoting and strengthening American democracy.

Jacksonian Democracy Essay Topics

• The main principles and goals of Jacksonian Democracy.
• The impact of Jacksonian Democracy on expanding voting and political participation.
• Andrew Jackson’s first inaugural address.
• The role of populism in shaping Jacksonian Democracy.
• The controversy surrounding Jackson’s Indian Removal policies.
• The influence of Jacksonian Democracy on the development of the two-party system.
• The impact of the “Kitchen Cabinet” and informal advisors on Jackson’s presidency.
• The economic policies of Jacksonian Democracy and its effect on the national economy.
• The antebellum capitalism and Jeffersonians and Jacksonians capitalist ideals.
• The expansion of land ownership and westward expansion under Jacksonian Democracy.
• The role of women in Jacksonian Democracy and the early suffrage movement.
• The controversy surrounding Jackson’s veto of the Bank of the United States.
• The impact of Jacksonian Democracy on Native American rights and sovereignty.
• The legacy of Jacksonian Democracy and its influence on subsequent political movements.
• The significance of the Democratic Party’s rise during the Jacksonian era.
• Andrew Jackson presidency: society, politics, veto.
• The impact of Jacksonian Democracy on the growth of economic opportunities for common people.
• The relationship between Jacksonian Democracy and the rise of American nationalism.
• The role of newspapers and media in promoting or opposing Jacksonian Democracy.
• The controversies surrounding Jackson’s removal of government deposits from the Bank of the United States.
• The response of marginalized groups, such as Native Americans and African Americans, to Jacksonian Democracy.
• The impact of Jacksonian Democracy on the development of the American presidency and executive power.
• The long-term effects of Jacksonian Democracy on American political and social identity.

Questions about Democracy for Essays

• What are the key principles and values of democracy?
• How does democracy promote individual freedoms and rights?
• “Democracy and Collective Identity in the EU and the USA”: article analysis.
• What are the different forms of democracy, and how do they vary?
• How does democracy ensure accountability and transparency in governance?
• Concepts of democracy and wealth.
• What is the role of elections in a democratic system?
• How does democracy promote political participation and citizen engagement?
• Discussion of democracy assignment.
• What are the main challenges to democracy in the modern world?
• How does democracy protect minority rights and prevent majority tyranny?
• What are the political concepts of democracy and nationalism?
• How does the media influence democratic processes and outcomes?
• What role do political parties play in a democratic system?
• What are representative democracy and its constituents?
• How does democracy address social and economic inequalities?
• What is the relationship between democracy and human rights ?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of direct democracy?
• How does democracy impact economic development and prosperity?
• Democracy description as a political system.
• What role does the judiciary play in a democratic system?
• How does democracy address issues of social justice and equality?
• What are the implications of globalization for democracy?
• Can democracy exist without a well-informed citizenry and a free press?
• Democratic and authoritarian states .
• How does democracy respond to extremist ideologies and populism?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of representative democracy?
• How does democracy promote peaceful transitions of power?
• How does democracy foster social cohesion and national unity?
• How does democracy ensure the protection of civil liberties?
• What is the nature and performance of Indonesia’s new democracy?
• How does democracy reconcile the tension between majority rule and minority rights?
• What are the roles of civil society and non-governmental organizations in a democracy?
• How does democracy deal with issues of environmental sustainability?
• Democracy: evolution of the political thought.
• What are the effects of money and lobbying on democratic processes?
• How does democracy guarantee freedom of speech and expression?
• What is the Canadian political culture and democracy?
• What is the impact of education and civic education on democracy?
• How does democracy address the challenges of pluralism and diversity?
• What are the implications of digital technologies for democracy?
• The French Revolution: failed democracy and Napoleon .
• What role does international cooperation play in fostering democracy?
• How does democracy address the power imbalance between different societal groups?
• What are the reasons for the failure of democracy in South America?
• What are the historical origins of democracy and its evolution over time?
• How does democracy protect the rights of marginalized and vulnerable populations?
• What are the political apathy and low voter turnout consequences in a democracy?
• How does democracy handle situations of crisis and emergency?
• Democracy as a socio-political phenomenon.
• What is the role of public opinion in democratic decision-making?
• How does democracy ensure fair representation and inclusivity ?
• What are the mechanisms in place to hold elected officials accountable in a democracy?

🎤 Topics about Democracy for Speeches

• The importance of democracy in safeguarding individual freedoms and human rights.
• The historical evolution of democracy: from ancient Athens to modern-day governance.
• The essential concepts and principles of democracy.
• Democratic revolutions and their impact on shaping the world.
• The role of citizen participation in a thriving democracy.
• Exploring the concept of direct democracy: can it work on a large scale?
• Backsliding of democracy: examples and preventive measures.
• The role of media in fostering accountability in a democracy.
• Striving for gender equality and women’s empowerment within democratic frameworks.
• Democracy and efforts to emphasize it.
• The influence of money and campaign finance on democratic processes.
• Democracy and social justice: addressing inequalities and discrimination.
• The impact of education in building a democratic society.
• The Republican and Democratic parties: issues, beliefs, and philosophy.
• Democracy and the environment: Promoting sustainable practices .
• The relation between democracy and economic development.
• Mexico’s globalization and democratization.
• The significance of a strong, independent judiciary in upholding the rule of law in a democracy.
• The potential benefits and drawbacks of digital technology on democracy.
• Youth engagement and the future of democracy.
• Democracy: equality of income and egalitarianism.
• Democracy in the face of political polarization and extremism.
• Democracy and cultural diversity : balancing majority rule and minority rights.
• Democratic society and the capitalist system.
• The importance of civic education in nurturing active and informed citizens.
• Democracy and peace: how democratic nations tend to avoid armed conflicts.
• The role of international organizations in promoting democracy worldwide.
• The struggle for democracy: bureaucracy.
• Social media and democracy: examining their impact on political discourse.
• Democracy and global governance: the need for collaborative decision-making.
• Democratization processes that have reshaped societies.
• The implications of demographic changes on democratic representation.
• The challenges of ensuring democracy in times of crisis and emergency.
• Democracy and immigration: the role of inclusive policies and integration.
• Corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
• The responsibility of democratic nations in addressing global challenges (e.g., climate change, pandemics).
• The effects of fake news and disinformation on democratic societies.
• Democrats and communists in 1950.
• Democratic reforms: lessons learned from successful transitions.
• The role of intellectuals and artists in promoting democratic values and ideals.
• Democracy and the future of work: navigating technological advancements and automation.
• Safeguard of democracy is education.
• The importance of strong civil society organizations to democracy.
• Democracy and national security: striking the balance between safety and civil liberties.
• Representing the democracy of Florida.
• The significance of a robust social welfare system in ensuring democratic stability.
• Democracy and accountability in the age of surveillance and privacy concerns .
• The future prospects of democracy: challenges and opportunities in the 21st century.
• Democratic regime and liberation movements.
• The role of transitional justice in post-authoritarian democracies.
• Democratic decision-making: weighing majority opinion against expert knowledge.
• The topic of democracy in various speeches.
• Democracy and educational policy: the need for equitable access to quality education.
• The influence of cultural, religious, and ideological diversity on democratic governance.
• Democracy and intergenerational justice: balancing present needs with future aspirations.
• Biden warns of US peril from Trump’s ‘dagger’ at democracy.

Democracy Debate Topics

• Is direct democracy a practical and effective form of governance?
• Should there be term limits for political officeholders in a democracy?
• Social democratic welfare state.
• Is compulsory voting necessary for a thriving democratic system?
• Is money in politics a threat to democratic integrity?
• Should there be limits on campaign spending in democratic elections?
• Social democracy vs. social policy.
• Should felons have the right to vote in a democracy?
• Can social media platforms ensure fair and unbiased political discourse in a democracy?
• Why does democracy work and why doesn’t it?
• Is proportional representation more democratic than a winner-takes-all electoral system?
• Should there be stricter regulations on political lobbying in a democracy?
• Is it necessary to establish a global democracy to tackle global challenges?
• Is the concept of majority rule compatible with protecting minority rights in a democracy?
• Is populism a threat or an asset to democracy?
• The struggle for democracy: how politics captures people’s interest?
• Should the voting age be lowered to increase youth participation in democracy?
• Should corporations have a say in democratic decision-making processes?
• Is a strong centralized government or decentralized governance better for democracy?
• Should the internet be regulated to protect its users from misinformation?
• Is democracy the best form of government ?
• Should religious institutions have a role in democratic governance?
• Is international intervention justified to promote democracy in authoritarian regimes ?
• Is a multi-party democracy more representative than a two-party system?
• Should immigration policies be determined through democratic processes?

✅ Outline for an Essay About Democracy

We’ve prepared a mini guide to help you structure your essay on democracy. You’ll also find some examples below.

Democracy Essay Introduction

Would you like to learn how to write a strong essay introduction? We are here for you! The introduction is the first paragraph of your essay, so it needs to provide context, capture the reader’s attention, and present the main topic or argument of an essay or paper. It also explains what readers can expect from the rest of the text. A good introduction should include:

• Hook . A hook is a compelling, attention-grabbing opening sentence designed to engage the reader’s interest and curiosity. It aims to draw the reader into the essay or paper by presenting an intriguing fact, anecdote, question, or statement related to the topic.
• Background information . Background information provides context and helps readers understand the subject matter before delving into the main discussion or argument.
• Thesis statement . It’s a sentence in the introduction part of the essay. A thesis statement introduces the paper’s main point, argument, or purpose, guiding and informing the reader about the essay’s focus and direction.

Hook : “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” ― Winston S. Churchill.

Thesis statement : Democracy has endured the test of time, and although other forms of governance have failed, democracy has stayed firm.

Essay on Democracy: Body Paragraphs

Body paragraphs are critical in writing a great college essay. There are 5 main steps you can follow to write a compelling body paragraph:

• Create a topic sentence.
• Provide the evidence.
• Explain how the evidence relates to the main points.
• Explain why your arguments are relevant.
• Add transition to the following paragraph.

Topic sentence : In a democratic system of governance, supreme authority rests with the people and is exercised through a framework of representation, often involving regular, unrestricted elections.

Supporting evidence : Democracy allows residents to participate in creating laws and public policies by electing their leaders; consequently, voters should be educated to select the best candidate for the ruling government.

Essay about Democracy: Conclusion

The conclusion is the final part of an academic essay. It should restate the thesis statement and briefly summarize the key points. Refrain from including new ideas or adding information to the conclusion.

There are 3 crucial components to the conclusion:

• Rephrased thesis statement.
• Summary of main points.
• Thought-provoking or memorable closing statement.

Rephrased thesis statement : To conclude, democracy is a form of government that has proven its effectiveness and resilience in contrast to other governance systems.

We hope you’ve found our article interesting and learned some new information! If so, feel free to share it with your friends and leave a comment below.

• Thesis Statements – The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• How to Write a Five-Paragraph Essay, With Examples | Grammarly
• Creating a Thesis Statement, Thesis Statement Tips – Purdue OWL® – Purdue University
• Paragraphs & Topic Sentences: Writing Guides: Writing Tutorial Services: Indiana University Bloomington
• How to Write a Topic Sentence (With Examples and Tips) | Indeed.com

414 Proposal Essay Topics for Projects, Research, & Proposal Arguments

371 fun argumentative essay topics for 2024.

• International Relations Topics Topics: 176
• International Organizations Essay Topics Topics: 97
• Elections Research Topics Topics: 124
• Diplomacy Essay Topics Topics: 78
• Political Parties Essay Topics Topics: 105
• Totalitarianism Research Topics Topics: 72
• Federalism Essay Topics Topics: 74
• Death Penalty Essay Topics Topics: 142
• Capital Punishment Essay Topics Topics: 65
• United Nations Research Topics Topics: 116
• Socialism Topics Topics: 92
• Republican Party Topics Topics: 72
• Public Administration Topics Topics: 133
• Political Science Paper Topics Topics: 96
• Bureaucracy Research Topics Topics: 58

216 Democracy Essay Topics & Research Questions about Democracy

Looking for interesting democracy titles for your assignments? Look no further! We present to you our excellent list of research questions about democracy, topics for presentation, and essay titles. They will surely inspire a great paper!

🏆 Best Democracy Titles for Essays

✍️ democracy essay topics for college, 👍 good democracy research topics & essay examples, 🎓 most interesting democracy topics for presentation, 📌 easy democracy essay topics, 💡 simple democracy essay ideas, ❓ research questions about democracy.

• Direct Democracy from Rousseau’s Perspective
• Majoritarian and Consensus Models of Democracy
• Democracy in The Lottery by Jackson
• Democracy: Strengths and Weaknesses According to Thucydides and Plato
• Rights & Duties and Basis of Democracy
• “Democracy and Its Critics” by Robert Dahl
• Democracy in the United States
• Concept of Democracy in the Black Community The issue of sports and racism centers on the communal and biased implication associated with the issue of black athletic supremacy or the overall view of such presumed supremacy.
• Democracy in Nigeria: Democratic Structure, Executive-Legislative Structure, and Electoral System In this paper will analyse the internal democratic structure of Nigeria, its executive-legislative structure, its electoral system and the problems being faced by the country.
• Democratic Leadership and Management Style The paper analyzes democratic leadership as the management style adopted by the author’s group, and approach to management indicated by the management style questionnaire.
• “How Democratic Is the American Constitution?” by Robert A. Dahl The book How Democratic is the American Constitution? by Robert A. Dahl is a provocative examination of the American constitution.
• Democracy: Advantages and Disadvantages Democracy has developed in a setting where people feel oppressed and generally being dictated upon or were unfair.
• Biotech, Corporate Power, and Democracy: Oryx and Crake One of the very first non-human characters of the story is Crakers. The book states that was his first view of the Crakers.
• The Influence of Social Media on Democracy Democracy entails the protection of human rights among individuals facing social, economic, and political challenges.
• Ancient Civilizations: Athenian Democracy vs Australian Democracy Athens was one of the very first known democracies. It comprises of the central city-state of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica.
• Globalization and Democratization Relationship This paper explores the existing relationship between democracy and globalization. It focuses on democratization, globalization and their imperativeness.
• Whigs’ vs. Democrats’ Views on Slavery and Race The political life of America in the 1830s – early 1850s was largely determined by the rivalry between Whigs and Democrats.
• The US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East This essay informs about the reasons for promoting democratic values by the US in the Middle East, which intends to establish a close relationship between the countries.
• Media and Democracy in “By the People: Debating American Government 5e” “By the People: Debating American Government” is an introduction to the American government, and the 9th chapter focuses on media and democracy in the US.
• Athenian Democracy: A History of Rise and Fall The 5th-4th centuries BC were a period of the flourishing of polises. There were some outstanding statesman who contributed to the democratization.
• Democratic Republic vs. Socialist State This paper aims to examine and compare the Democratic Republic and the Socialist State and present a personal opinion regarding the two systems.
• Challenges of Establishing Democracy in Post-Saddam Iraq This essay explains why the concepts of democracy would be extremely difficult to establish in Iraq. The essay explains the dynamics of ethnic composition of Iraq.
• Capitalism and Democracy: The Problem of Coexistence The paper examines whether the coexistence of capitalism and democracy provides mutual benefits or enforces detremial mechanisms that strain the relationship between these forces.
• Industrial Revolution, Democracy and Equality The impact of the industrial revolution on society should not be understated. It transformed mostly agrarian economies into those oriented towards goods and services.
• Plato’s “Republic” – What Is Democracy? An idealized version of a parliamentary government is the redefinition of democracy. Plato failed to see the possibility of transforming ordinary people into intelligent members of the electorate.
• Social Entrepreneurship and Democracy The article explores the integral role of social entrepreneurship in democratic societies, particularly in pre-democratic or emerging democracy contexts.
• The Impact of the Locke’s Democratic Theory on the Contemporary Governance Locke’s ideas have influenced the development of the doctrine of the separation of powers, which is used around the world to create a balance of power within governments.
• French Revolution as a Turning Point to Democracy The French Revolution is usually credited with overturning the monarchy characterized by royal absolutism and enforcing the Republic instead.
• Democracy in America Between 1780 and 1830 Early democracy was mostly seen in changes in the leadership of the United States since the different candidates who took leadership had different administration methods.
• Expansion of Democracy in the United States before 1877 This paper discusses the rapid expansion of democracy for Americans before 1877 and explaines how government measures helped former slaves become citizens of the country.
• “The Role of the United Nations Development Programme in Post-conflict Peace-Building”: Article Analysis Endorsement of democratic values and supporting policies of good governance have become trademark characteristics of the UN in the approaches adopted to deal with issues.
• Nutrition, Rules, Government, Religion, and Democracy It is essential to identify the ideas of nutrition, rules, government, religion, and democracy that changed people’s lives and analyze their influence.
• Liberal Democracy Opportunities for Middle Eastern Nations The current paper aims to discuss various challenges and opportunities for Middle Eastern nations to transition to liberal democracy.
• Democracy in the United States in the Digital Era The paper states that the digital era has created an environment in which false information can spread rapidly. This becomes a severe issue for democracy.
• Were the Founding Fathers Democratic Reformers? The Constitutional Convention, proposed by the democratic reformers, became the basis of the constitutional order in the country.
• Ethical Duties of Public Officials in a Democracy All public officials are bound to some ethical principles which dictate their conduct in their various responsibilities.
• American Democracy: The Formation of the United States The formation of the United States is linked to the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.
• Astra Taylor’s “What Is Democracy?” Documentary Review Astra Taylor’s Documentary, What is Democracy? takes an in-depth look at the concept of democracy and its history, from its ancient Greek roots.
• Divergence Between Republicans and Democrats Throughout history, a whole established platform of divergence between Republicans and Democrats has narrowed.
• Republicans vs. Democrats on Separation of Church and State Most Republicans have a rather negative attitude towards separating it from the state. While many Democrats believe that faith should not interfere with any political processes.
• The East German Democratic Republic: Problems and Challenges The East German Democratic Republic had major issues, including its political practices, which contributed to the country’s collapse rather than triumph.
• Problems of Democratic Consolidation in Developing Countries The paper argues developing countries pursuing economic and political heights should strive to consolidate democratic forces.
• Slavery and Democracy in the United States On the road to progress and enlightenment, virtually all races have resorted to such a terrible form of social development as slavery.
• Democrats and Republicans in the US Politics Democrats tend to be institutionalized mainly as the party of the economic elites. At the same time, Republicans represent working-class Americans.
• Negative Impact of Modern Democracy on Political Process In recent years, there has been a lot of work by economists looking for factors that could explain the bias and inconsistency of the political process.
• Negative Impact of Modern Democracy in the US The main cause of social imbalances in the United States is value conflict. This is a “seismic shift” in cultural stereotypes under the influence of new social phenomena.
• American Democrats’ Pro-Abortion Beliefs The US political system consists of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. The chosen news article elaborates more on the Federal Abortion ban from these two perspectives.
• Citizen Participation in a Representative Democracy Society’s quality of life is determined not only by the government’s influence but also by citizens’ interest in applying efforts to promote their well-being.
• Jacksonian Democracy: Who Benefitted? The Jacksonian democracy enhanced the freedom and equality of citizens in the United States, giving people more power and representation in social visions.
• Challenges to American Democracy Principles The surveillance of U.S. citizens by intelligence agencies is a fundamental departure from the principles of freedom and a serious blow to liberal principles.
• Democratic Political System Analysis The paper addresses the topic of democratic and authoritarian political systems, and answers the question: does a democratic system guarantee people’s will?
• Japanese Political Power and Liberal Democratic Party Although there are many studies that dwell on the case of LDP and its success, the popularity and national devotion to the party remain rather vague.
• Cultural Democracy and Internet Imperialism The source helps draw a connection between the conscious domination of cultural niches and its impact on global biases within media.
• Globalization and Democratic Peace Theory In the context of globalization, it is necessary to consider the theory of democratic peace, which recognizes democracy as the best form of government for society.
• Utilitarianism Theory Applied to Western Democracy According to the theory of utilitarianism, there are ethical norms that must be followed. As a result, they overlook the other virtues that favor the few.
• Populism as Integral Part of Democracy Populism cannot be perceived as a grotesque distortion of representative democracy’s objectives and practices since populism’s aim is to serve the interests of the masses.
• All In: The Fight for Democracy Documentary All In: The Fight for Democracy is the 2020 documentary film. The film revolves around voter suppression in the United States. The central theme of the film is disenfranchisement.
• Human Democracy and Technology Development The article explores the impact of technology on human rights and the human policies initiated to govern human rights and freedom in the digital era.
• Corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo While world economies are affected by a range of problems, some have remained entrenched in countries, impending national and regional growth.
• Democracy in America: Unperfect, But Still Prevails The article looks at the views of French historian Alexis de Tocqueville on democracy and its potential dangers.
• Foreign Direct Investments in Democratic Republic of Congo For a long time, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been considered a country unattractive for Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs).
• Democracy in Iran & Culture and Politics Although, to some observers, democracy may seem as the undoubtedly superior form of government, it is not universally present in the world.
• Republic and Democracy in the United States The original Constitution guarantees every American state the Republican form of government, which protects the established U.S. system from the tyranny of the majority.
• Poland: Democratic Nation vs. Communist Country Differences between people living in a democratic nation and a communist country are apparent by looking at Poland before and after communism.
• Impacts of the Democratization of Making Maps Democratization of Maps began in the late 1970s, although some geographers opposed the idea of democratization of maps with a view that it would lead to the demise of cartography.
• The Shays’ Rebellion: Democratic Movement The Shays’ Rebellion was the culmination of the democratic movement in the United States in the 18th century’s last quarter.
• The Democrats Attempt to Incorporate Immigration Issue in the Economic Bill Notably, the most recent development on immigration is that the Democrats presented a bill in an attempt to include immigrants who have not been accounted for in their economic bill.
• The Crisis of Democracy of the 1930s The Soviet Union played a key role during Hitler’s despotic reign in Germany. Notably, the union was at war with itself, which added to the possible aggression anticipated from Germany.
• Economic, Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership The article gives an overview of how capital ownership generally integrates with economic growth and democratic stability. It uses different economic theories.
• Will the New Communications Technologies Bring a New “Age of Democracy”? Communication technologies are an integral part of the realities of the modern age, where every aspect of human existence is directly impacted by digital forces.
• Republican and Democratic Parties Comparison This paper compares and contrasts the Republican and Democratic parties, and discusses the benefits and drawbacks of the two-party system.
• The Ideology of Political Liberalism and True Democratic Ideal True democracy implies the political courage of individuals that are determined to fight for the ideals of freedom and justice for everyone during crisis times.
• Election in the United States in the Context of Democratic Values Evidently, the United States of America became one of the first nations in the world’s history, which were built upon the principles of democracy.
• Will the New Communication Technologies Bring a New Age of Democracy? The use of information technology will not turn society into a society of direct democracy, and it will remain representative.
• Walt Whitman as a Democratic Symbol Speaking of Whitman’s overall contribution to poetry, it may be safe to say that he was an innovator that would never be afraid of experimenting
• Beliefs of the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans With his followers, Thomas Jefferson strongly viewed the United States as more of a sovereign entity bound with a common interest.
• Bureaucracy in a Democracy Bureaucracy is a considerable part of contemporary democratic society. Most organizations should be regulated by specific services to maintain uniformity because of their complexity.
• Reconciling the Need for a Bureaucracy Versus All These Issues It Presents Against Democracy Although bureaucracy as a phenomenon has gained a rather negative coloring in the everyday use of the word, it is supposed to describe a neutral phenomenon.
• Prison System for a Democratic Society This report is designed to transform the corrections department to form a system favorable for democracy, seek to address the needs of different groups of offenders.
• The Effects of Hate Crime Law on Democracy The hate crime law effectively protects people from different social groups and their freedom in spite of its potential risk to an individual’s right to express himself.
• Democracy in America: Decision-Making It can be argued that politics in America are not genuinely democratic. The current approaches to decision-making do not account for the opinion of the citizens
• Democracy in the American Government The American political system is regarded to be a representative democracy. The system is democratic due to regular elections and equal opportunities for civic participation.
• The Health of American Democracy In this article, the author assesses the health of American democracy based on the political participation and political knowledge of ordinary Americans.
• Representing a Democracy in Miami, Florida This paper analyzes three members of Congress from Miami, Florida by looking at their demographic profile, support base, policy issues of interest, and ideologies.
• Principles and Literature Materials on Democracy and Governance There are numerous literature publications on democracy and governance whose main objective is to promote democracy and good governance.
• Key Principles and Processes of Democracy and Their Influences on Public Policies Democratic principles are very vital during a public policy formulation, this is because democracy is becoming the most preferred form of government around the world.
• The Concepts of Contemporary Democratic Governance and the Separation of Powers The federalism and the doctrine of the separation of powers are very important in terms of establishing democratic forms of governance.
• Is the USA a Democracy? American Politics Although the United States of America prides itself on being the first democratic country, an opinion that the US is not a democracy has been gaining more traction in recent years.
• The Issues of Democracy in Australia and the USA The democratic governance in both Australia and the USA has similarities and differences, it is also important that technology impacts different policy and governance areas.
• G. Bush and B. Obama: Tools of Democracy, Public Policies, and Practices The use of tools of democracy provide a lot of alternatives through which the government may effectively influence the behavior of individuals for the benefit of the entire public.
• The Clayton County Library System: The Effectiveness of Workplace Democracy Diversity in the workplace helps in promoting democratic principles in several ways, for example, ensuring diversity in the workplace fosters the spirit of participation.
• Differences Between Presidential and Parliamentary Types of Democracy Using the American, British and Indian systems of democracies the essay explains the differences in the election process between the presidential and parliamentary governments.
• Digital Communication Systems and Its Impact on Democracy The contribution, which new media can make in the development of democracy, depends on the efforts of government and media groups to the large extent.
• Capitalism and Socialism, Democracy This kind of system is illustrated by having recognized equality rights and freedom both in a social setting and political locale.
• The Democrat and the Dictator: Roosevelt’s and Hitler’s Speech The common ground for both Roosevelt and Hitler could be found in the fact that both of the leaders were reproaching the governmental leadership that existed at that time.
• E-Consultation: Enabling Democracy Between Elections Increasing public involvement in political issues is a major issue in democracy. Most countries in the world are democratic.
• Concepts of Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Democracy Both authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are derived from an autocratic ideology, the doctrine that the government is resided in the hands of one individual or a group.
• Democracy: Principles and Critiques Having stemmed from the democratic principles, the ideas of diversity call for the promotion of tolerance and mutual respect.
• “The Transparency of Democracy” Research by Friedman The research “The Transparency of Democracy” by Friedman used the ideas founded in Lefebvre’s invention of space to evaluate the powers involving cultural and spatial formation.
• Social Justice to Maintain Democracy in Australia This essay will look into the impact of social justice concepts in maintaining democracy in Australian society.
• How Democracy Was Born? Since ancient times, democracy has been considered a favorable way of ruling which permits freedom and participation in state of affairs by all citizens.
• Ethnic Parties and Democratic Stability in Divided Societies Many professional on divided societies and governmental designing generally declare that serious society divisions create a major predicament for democracy.
• Democracy and de Facto Powers The main objective is to examine the challenges and results in order to make “more changes to become a full-fledged democracy”.
• How Democratic Is the American Constitution? This essay paper discuss deeply the American constitution, how democratic and anti-democratic it has been, and how it should be improved to be more democratic.
• Ethical Issues of American Democracy The American democracy is experiencing metamorphosis, and on the ethical perspective, some issues are emerging.
• Is the Labour Party Neo-Liberal or Social Democratic? The basis of the party is solely social democratic, and, in spite of the fact that some instances of liberalism could be traced in the principles of the party.
• Is Russia a Democracy? The essay states that Russian democracy is not a true democracy but an emerging democracy where people as yet have limited freedom and rights.
• Parliamentary and Presidential Democracy Discussion At the beginning of the 21st century, parliamentary and presidential democracies are the main forms of power in the world.
• The Effects of Leftist Movement on Democracy in Latin America The paper is about the relationship between the adoption of neo-liberal policies and the social impact of economic development in geographically adjacent Latin American countries.
• Democratic Capitalism and Morality in America The problem of the level of the salary in the modern world remains core in economics in the condition of the free market.
• America Transformed Timelines and Democracy Growth This paper discusses America’s transformed timeline highlighting the changes in political parties and the significant events that marked the growth of democracy.
• Is Russia a Real Democracy? Thus, a difficult question of whether there is a democracy in Russia is considered with a negative response in most parameters when comparing with other developed countries.
• Republican and Democratic Parties Major Differences Many political ideologies exist in the U.S. ranging from far right-wing conservatism to far-leftist philosophy. Two major parties are Republican and Democratic.
• Democracy in Islamic World The urgent problem of modern society nowadays is the state of democracy in Islamic countries that claims attention of politicians and common people all around the world.
• Democratic Capitalism and Individual Liberty Democratic capitalism is the economic and political system based on individuals’ potentials in an environment of cooperation and trust.
• Leo Strauss and Friedrich Hayek on Democracy The analysis of the two philosophers, Leo Strauss and Friedrich August von Hayek and their beliefs and views on democracy has a common theme, which is described in the article.
• Liberal Democracy and the Problem of Political Organization Liberal democracy cannot be the final solution to the political organization as it is limited by the Constitution and strict laws and regulations within the state.
• Gender Inequality in Democratic Welfare States This paper is claimed to evaluate the strategies of Liberal and Social Democratic political forces aimed at the alleviation of gender inequalities.
• How Far Did General Chun Doo Hwan Prevent a Democratic Development in South Korea During the Late 1980s to Early 1990s? The paper examines the lengths to which the general went to ensure that his military rule continued and also examines how he subverted the democratic process.
• Dominican Republic Developing a Democracy The author presents the facts from the history of the Dominican Republic, the barriers to building democracy in the country, and solutions in this way.
• Illiberal Democracy in Hungary and Turkey Today in Hungary and Turkey one can observe the process of establishment of the so-called illiberal democracy, although with different roots and manifestations.
• Political Environment: Democrats and Republicans The contemporary American political environment has been impacted by the dichotomous role of two leading political parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
• The Socratic Identification of Knowledge and Athenian Democracy It is clear that knowledge and wisdom are essential ingredients of life worth living because ignorance and the lack of understanding make life similar to animals.
• Russian Federation: Developing a Democracy As one of the advanced developing countries, Russian Federation also passes through the stage of democracy establishment.
• Russian Federation: Political History and Democracy The present paper will outline the key events in the political history of the Russian Federation and the barriers faced by the country in achieving democracy.
• Belarus: Developing a Democracy Belarus is one of the states that requires political changes to ensure that its citizens are given indefeasible rights to which they are entitled according to the basic principles of democracy.
• How Russian Federation Is Developing a Democracy Almost 30 years after, the modern political regime in Russia cannot be referred to as a democratic one, as its leader is represented by only one political party.
• How Lebanon Is Developing a Democracy Lebanon has quite a history of fighting for democratic values. The civil war that took place in 1975 and lasted for 15 years left a huge mark on citizens’ economic well-being.
• How Botswana Is Developing a Democracy To avoid the system of authoritarian rule, Botswana people will require reinforcing the influence of its Democratic Party and other political alliances.
• How South Africa Is Developing a Democracy The lack of democratization within South African society can be seen as the primary problem that has to be managed for democratic principles to be established within the republic.
• American Democracy and Landmark Supreme Court Cases This essay ponders the key values of American democracy and describes landmark Supreme Court cases that have contributed to the formation of the political system.
• The Birth of the United States’ Democracy This paper discusses the theme of American democracy to understand its origins, why it was important, and who was involved in the process starting from 1776.
• Special Interest Groups as a Threat to Democracy Special interest groups are smaller communities within larger ones that promote specific interests attributed to their members.
• Creating an Ideal State with Democratic Government The ideal country will accept the model of constitutional democracy because the constitution will play a significant role in stabilization and help overcome the political crisis.
• Is the United States a Model Democracy? The US is a model democracy because it holds free, frequent, and inclusive elections, its citizens enjoy a wide range of individual freedoms and rights.
• Democracy Principles in the United States This essay will provide four reasons as to why the US was not built on the principles of democracy and has not genuinely complied with them to date.
• American Foreign Policy Exporting Democracy American foreign policy is designed to meet several international goals but the priority areas over the years have been national security and defense.
• Americans for Democratic Action This paper discusses Americans for Democratic Action, abbreviated as ADA. Representatives of ADA tend to focus on the importance of such values as liberty and justice.
• Technologies and Equality for Democratic Society Education is a fundamental aspect of any democratic society or state. The fact is that ignorance and the lack of knowledge create the basis for speculations.
• American Democrat and German Dictator in 1933 The new Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler, and the new President of the US, Franklin D. Roosevelt, came to the power in quite a difficult time.
• Democratic Leadership Style and Responsibilities Democratic leadership style, which is also known as a participative style, is a leadership style that strives to involve employees in organizational management and decision making.
• Democratic Deficit in Global Governance A democratic system does not automatically mean the exercise of authority directly by citizens, but rather through its elected agents.
• Mass Culture and Democratization Mass culture is a topic viewed differently by various scholars. Key areas of study include the role of mass culture in the processes of modernization and democratization.
• Pro-Democratic Political Position in the US A certain political position makes a person more involved in the regulation of social, economical, and political processes in the country.
• Sexism, Democracy, and Modernization The system of government and the implementation of a new ideology positively affect the rights of women, so between sexism, democracy, and modernization exist interdependence.
• Contemporary Democratic Ideals and Christian Tradition In the given paper, democracy will be regarded as the value-based ideal of social order that implies the presence of a particular worldview aligned with it.
• Australia’s Liberal Democratic System This paper studies how Australia’s Liberal Democratic system that is a keystone of social policy in the country, enhances and or limits the well-being of its citizens.
• Revolutionary Communism vs. Democratic Socialism
• Federalism, Consociational Democracy, Government
• Democratic Theory Questions: “Missing and Murdered”
• Brazil’s Democracy and National Economic Performance
• Opioid Crisis Policy by Democrats and Republicans
• Democratic Views on Pro-Immigration
• South African Democracy and National Economic Performance
• The Concept of Democracy as a Historical Fiasco
• Dream Act as an Institution of American Democracy
• US Democracy and Its Media Representation
• The Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation
• Russian Democracy and Political Stability
• Impacts of Wealth Inequality on Democracy
• Indian Democracy and National Economic Performance
• Jacksonian Democracy and Manifest Destiny
• Roosevelt and Hitler: Democrat and Dictator
• India and Brazil Democracy Analysis
• Pauli Murray’s Contribution to American Democracy
• Nigerian Democracy and National Economic Performance
• Natural Resources and Democracy in Political Economy
• The Arab Spring: New Patterns for Democracy
• The Concept of Democracy in Political Theory
• Democratic Communities and Third-Party Conflict Management
• Tocqueville on U.S. Constitution Origins & Democracy Principles
• Representative Democracy and Its Crisis
• The Impact of Montenegro’s Independence on Global Self-Determination
• How Wealth Inequality Affects Democracy in America?
• Representative Democracy and Its Crisis in Europe
• Political Parties in the Democratic World
• Democracy and National Economic Performance in China
• Should Democracy Be Promoted in Africa?
• Are Free Elections Necessary to Have a Democracy?
• Are Pressure Groups Good for Democracy?
• Which Country Has the Best Democracy in the World?
• How Does Democracy Help the World?
• Can Democracy Remedy Africa’s Problem?
• How Many Countries Have Democracy?
• Does Democracy Ensure Freedom?
• In Which Counties There Is No Democracy?
• Does Democracy Produce Worse Government Than Dictatorship Produce?
• Why Democracy Is a Good Form of Government?
• Does Democracy Work for the Entire World?
• What Is the World’s Oldest Democracy?
• How Did Hindenburg Undermine German Democracy in 1925-33?
• What Is the Role of Citizens in a Democracy?
• How Effective Was Athenian Democracy?
• Why Is Democracy Considered Much Superior?
• How Far Had Britain Moved Towards a Full Democracy by 1928?
• Who Started Democracy in the World?
• What Are the Freedoms of Living in a Democracy?
• Is Indian Democracy Alive and Kicking?
• Why Democracy Is Better Than Its Alternatives?
• When Democracy Is Considered Successful?
• Should Poorer Countries Embrace Democracy?
• What Are the Two Most Important Ideals of Democracy?
• What Is the Most Basic Outcome of Democracy?
• Was the First World War a War for More Democracy?
• What Are the Unique Traits of Athenian Democracy?
• What Are the Issues in Which Democracy Has Failed?
• What True Majority Democracy Is About?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, September 9). 216 Democracy Essay Topics & Research Questions about Democracy. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/democracy-essay-topics/

"216 Democracy Essay Topics & Research Questions about Democracy." StudyCorgi , 9 Sept. 2021, studycorgi.com/ideas/democracy-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) '216 Democracy Essay Topics & Research Questions about Democracy'. 9 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "216 Democracy Essay Topics & Research Questions about Democracy." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/democracy-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "216 Democracy Essay Topics & Research Questions about Democracy." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/democracy-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "216 Democracy Essay Topics & Research Questions about Democracy." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/democracy-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Democracy were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on June 21, 2024 .

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

121 Democracy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Democracy is a system of government that allows citizens to participate in decision-making processes, elect their representatives, and enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms. Writing an essay on democracy can be a thought-provoking and enlightening task. To assist you in selecting a suitable topic, we have compiled a list of 121 democracy essay topic ideas and examples. These topics cover various aspects of democracy, including its history, challenges, benefits, and future prospects. Whether you are a student, academic, or simply interested in exploring democracy, these prompts will inspire you to delve deeper into this fascinating subject.

• The birth of democracy: Ancient Athens as a model.
• The impact of Magna Carta on the development of democracy.
• The role of the Enlightenment in shaping democratic thought.
• Democracy versus authoritarianism: A comparative analysis.
• The challenges faced by emerging democracies in Africa.
• The Arab Spring: Catalyst for democratic change in the Middle East.
• The impact of colonialism on the development of democracy in former colonies.
• Democracy and economic development: Does democracy promote prosperity?
• The role of media in promoting democracy and civic engagement.
• The influence of social media on modern democratic processes.
• The role of education in fostering democratic values and active citizenship.
• The impact of globalization on democracy.
• The rise of populism and its impact on democratic institutions.
• The role of political parties in a healthy democracy.
• The importance of an independent judiciary in safeguarding democracy.
• The impact of money in politics on democratic processes.
• Democracy and human rights: Are they inseparable?
• The role of civil society organizations in promoting democracy.
• The impact of gerrymandering on democratic representation.
• The role of women in promoting and sustaining democracy.
• The challenges of democratic consolidation in post-conflict societies.
• Democracy and environmental sustainability: Are they compatible?
• Direct democracy versus representative democracy: A comparative analysis.
• The role of the United Nations in promoting democracy worldwide.
• The impact of technology on electoral processes and voter turnout.
• The role of international organizations in supporting democratic transitions.
• The impact of immigration on democratic societies.
• The role of political leadership in strengthening or undermining democracy.
• The impact of income inequality on democratic participation.
• Democracy and nationalism: A conflicting relationship?
• The role of religious institutions in promoting or hindering democracy.
• The impact of political polarization on democratic discourse.
• The influence of money in the media on democratic processes.
• The impact of campaign finance reform on democracy.
• The role of public opinion in shaping democratic decision-making.
• Democracy and social justice: Are they mutually reinforcing?
• The impact of voter suppression on democratic outcomes.
• The role of youth in promoting democratic change.
• Democracy and multiculturalism: A delicate balance.
• The impact of electoral systems on democratic representation.
• The role of grassroots movements in promoting democratic reforms.
• The impact of globalization on democratic governance.
• Democracy and the rule of law: A symbiotic relationship?
• The role of international aid in supporting democratic development.
• The impact of political corruption on democratic institutions.
• The role of political satire in holding democratic leaders accountable.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the digital age.
• The impact of social movements on democratic change.
• The role of citizen journalism in promoting democratic accountability.
• Democracy and public health: A mutually reinforcing relationship?
• The impact of campaign finance on democratic elections.
• The role of citizen participation in strengthening democracy.
• The challenges of democratic governance in multicultural societies.
• Democracy and peacebuilding: A symbiotic relationship?
• The impact of political polarization on democratic stability.
• The role of international election observers in promoting free and fair elections.
• The challenges of democratic governance in post-truth societies.
• Democracy and sustainable development: Compatible or conflicting goals?
• The impact of social media echo chambers on democratic dialogue.
• The role of civil liberties in safeguarding democracy.
• Democracy and gender equality: Are they mutually reinforcing?
• The impact of disinformation on democratic processes.
• The role of political education in fostering democratic values.
• The challenges of democratic governance in times of crisis.
• The impact of populism on democratic institutions.
• Democracy and income distribution: A mutually reinforcing relationship?
• The role of non-governmental organizations in promoting democratic reforms.
• The impact of media ownership concentration on democratic discourse.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the face of climate change.
• Democracy and the rights of minority groups: A delicate balance.
• The impact of social media algorithms on democratic participation.
• The role of whistleblowers in exposing political corruption and safeguarding democracy.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of artificial intelligence.
• Democracy and the rights of indigenous peoples: A conflicting relationship?
• The impact of money in politics on democratic accountability.
• The role of public intellectuals in promoting democratic values.
• The challenges of democratic governance in times of economic crisis.
• Democracy and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals: A work in progress.
• The impact of surveillance technology on democratic freedoms.
• The role of international sanctions in promoting democratic change.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the age of fake news.
• Democracy and the rights of refugees: A moral dilemma?
• The impact of social media manipulation on democratic elections.
• The role of whistleblowers in exposing human rights abuses and promoting democracy.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of big data.
• Democracy and the rights of people with disabilities: An unfinished agenda.
• The impact of algorithmic bias on democratic decision-making.
• The role of international peacekeeping missions in supporting democratic transitions.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of cyber warfare.
• Democracy and the rights of animals: A moral imperative?
• The impact of artificial intelligence on democratic decision-making processes.
• The role of international human rights organizations in promoting democracy.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of mass surveillance.
• Democracy and the rights of future generations: A sustainable imperative?
• The impact of social media manipulation on democratic participation.
• The role of digital activism in promoting democratic change.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of disinformation.
• Democracy and the rights of prisoners: A question of rehabilitation or punishment?
• The impact of facial recognition technology on democratic freedoms.
• The role of international criminal tribunals in promoting democracy and accountability.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of artificial general intelligence.
• Democracy and the rights of non-human beings: A philosophical debate.
• The impact of deepfake technology on democratic discourse.
• The role of international development aid in promoting democratic reforms.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of bioengineering.
• Democracy and the rights of AI entities: An ethical dilemma?
• The impact of blockchain technology on democratic decision-making processes.
• The role of international peacebuilding missions in supporting democratic transitions.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of quantum computing.
• Democracy and the rights of sentient beings: A moral imperative?
• The impact of social credit systems on democratic freedoms.
• The role of digital human rights organizations in promoting democracy.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of genetic engineering.
• Democracy and the rights of future AI entities: A legal quandary?
• The impact of brain-computer interfaces on democratic decision-making.
• The role of international humanitarian organizations in promoting democracy.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of mind uploading.
• Democracy and the rights of extraterrestrial beings: A philosophical inquiry.
• The impact of algorithmic governance on democratic freedoms.
• The role of international peacekeeping robots in supporting democratic transitions.
• The challenges of democratic governance in the era of transhumanism.

These essay topic ideas provide a wide array of options to explore the multifaceted nature of democracy. Whether you choose a historical, political, social, or technological perspective, the key is to critically analyze and present a well-supported argument. Democracy is an ever-evolving concept, and by delving into these topics, you can contribute to the ongoing discourse on democratic theory and practice. So, choose a topic that resonates with your interests, conduct thorough research, and let your essay reflect your passion for democracy.

Want to research companies faster?

Instantly access industry insights

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Leverage powerful AI research capabilities

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2024 Pitchgrade

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Democracy in 100, 300 and 500 Words

• Updated on  
• Jan 15, 2024

The oldest account of democracy can be traced back to 508–507 BCC Athens . Today there are over 50 different types of democracy across the world. But, what is the ideal form of democracy? Why is democracy considered the epitome of freedom and rights around the globe? Let’s explore what self-governance is and how you can write a creative and informative essay on democracy and its significance. 

Today, India is the largest democracy with a population of 1.41 billion and counting. Everyone in India above the age of 18 is given the right to vote and elect their representative. Isn’t it beautiful, when people are given the option to vote for their leader, one that understands their problems and promises to end their miseries? This is just one feature of democracy , for we have a lot of samples for you in the essay on democracy. Stay tuned!

This Blog Includes:

What is democracy , sample essay on democracy (100 words), sample essay on democracy (250 to 300 words), sample essay on democracy for upsc (500 words).

Democracy is a form of government in which the final authority to deliberate and decide the legislation for the country lies with the people, either directly or through representatives. Within a democracy, the method of decision-making, and the demarcation of citizens vary among countries. However, some fundamental principles of democracy include the rule of law, inclusivity, political deliberations, voting via elections , etc. 

Did you know: On 15th August 1947, India became the world’s largest democracy after adopting the Indian Constitution and granting fundamental rights to its citizens?

Also Read: Essay on Yoga Day

Also Read: Speech on Yoga Day

Democracy where people make decisions for the country is the only known form of governance in the world that promises to inculcate principles of equality, liberty and justice. The deliberations and negotiations to form policies and make decisions for the country are the basis on which the government works, with supreme power to people to choose their representatives, delegate the country’s matters and express their dissent. The democratic system is usually of two types, the presidential system, and the parliamentary system. In India, the three pillars of democracy, namely legislature, executive and judiciary, working independently and still interconnected, along with a free press and media provide a structure for a truly functional democracy. Despite the longest-written constitution incorporating values of sovereignty, socialism, secularism etc. India, like other countries, still faces challenges like corruption, bigotry, and oppression of certain communities and thus, struggles to stay true to its democratic ideals.

Did you know: Some of the richest countries in the world are democracies?

Must Read : Consumer Rights in India

Must Read: Democracy and Diversity Class 10

As Abraham Lincoln once said, “democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.” There is undeniably no doubt that the core of democracies lies in making people the ultimate decision-makers. With time, the simple definition of democracy has evolved to include other principles like equality, political accountability, rights of the citizens and to an extent, values of liberty and justice. Across the globe, representative democracies are widely prevalent, however, there is a major variation in how democracies are practised. The major two types of representative democracy are presidential and parliamentary forms of democracy. Moreover, not all those who present themselves as a democratic republic follow its values.

Many countries have legally deprived some communities of living with dignity and protecting their liberty, or are practising authoritarian rule through majoritarianism or populist leaders. Despite this, one of the things that are central and basic to all is the practice of elections and voting. However, even in such a case, the principles of universal adult franchise and the practice of free and fair elections are theoretically essential but very limited in practice, for a democracy. Unlike several other nations, India is still, at least constitutionally and principally, a practitioner of an ideal democracy.

With our three organs of the government, namely legislative, executive and judiciary, the constitutional rights to citizens, a multiparty system, laws to curb discrimination and spread the virtues of equality, protection to minorities, and a space for people to discuss, debate and dissent, India has shown a commitment towards democratic values. In recent times, with challenges to freedom of speech, rights of minority groups and a conundrum between the protection of diversity and unification of the country, the debate about the preservation of democracy has become vital to public discussion.

Did you know: In countries like Brazil, Scotland, Switzerland, Argentina, and Austria the minimum voting age is 16 years?

Also Read: Difference Between Democracy and Dictatorship

Democracy originated from the Greek word dēmokratiā , with dēmos ‘people’ and Kratos ‘rule.’ For the first time, the term appeared in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Classical Athens, to mean “rule of the people.” It now refers to a form of governance where the people have the right to participate in the decision-making of the country. Majorly, it is either a direct democracy where citizens deliberate and make legislation while in a representative democracy, they choose government officials on their behalf, like in a parliamentary or presidential democracy.

The presidential system (like in the USA) has the President as the head of the country and the government, while the parliamentary system (like in the UK and India) has both a Prime Minister who derives its legitimacy from a parliament and even a nominal head like a monarch or a President.

The notions and principle frameworks of democracy have evolved with time. At the core, lies the idea of political discussions and negotiations. In contrast to its alternatives like monarchy, anarchy, oligarchy etc., it is the one with the most liberty to incorporate diversity. The ideas of equality, political representation to all, active public participation, the inclusion of dissent, and most importantly, the authority to the law by all make it an attractive option for citizens to prefer, and countries to follow.

The largest democracy in the world, India with the lengthiest constitution has tried and to an extent, successfully achieved incorporating the framework to be a functional democracy. It is a parliamentary democratic republic where the President is head of the state and the Prime minister is head of the government. It works on the functioning of three bodies, namely legislative, executive, and judiciary. By including the principles of a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic, and undertaking the guidelines to establish equality, liberty and justice, in the preamble itself, India shows true dedication to achieving the ideal.

It has formed a structure that allows people to enjoy their rights, fight against discrimination or any other form of suppression, and protect their rights as well. The ban on all and any form of discrimination, an independent judiciary, governmental accountability to its citizens, freedom of media and press, and secular values are some common values shared by all types of democracies.

Across the world, countries have tried rooting their constitution with the principles of democracy. However, the reality is different. Even though elections are conducted everywhere, mostly, they lack freedom of choice and fairness. Even in the world’s greatest democracies, there are challenges like political instability, suppression of dissent, corruption , and power dynamics polluting the political sphere and making it unjust for the citizens. Despite the consensus on democracy as the best form of government, the journey to achieve true democracy is both painstaking and tiresome. 

Did you know: Countries like Singapore, Peru, and Brazil have compulsory voting?

Must Read: Democracy and Diversity Class 10 Notes

Democracy is a process through which the government of a country is elected by and for the people.

Yes, India is a democratic country and also holds the title of the world’s largest democracy.

Direct and Representative Democracy are the two major types of Democracy.

Related Articles

Hope you learned from our essay on democracy! For more exciting articles related to writing and education abroad , follow Leverage Edu .

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Very helpful essay

Thanks for your valuable feedback

Thank you so much for informing this much about democracy

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Democracy Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on democracy.

Democracy is known as the finest form of government. Why so? Because in a democracy, the people of the country choose their government. They enjoy certain rights which are very essential for any human being to live freely and happily. There are various democratic countries in the world , but India is the largest one. Democracy has withstood the test of time, and while other forms have the government has failed, democracy stood strong. It has time and again proved its importance and impact.

Significance of a Democracy

Democracy is very important for human development . When people have free will to live freely, they will be happier. Moreover, we have seen how other forms of government have turned out to be. Citizens are not that happy and prosperous in a monarchy or anarchy.

Furthermore, democracy lets people have equal rights. This ensures that equality prevails all over the country. Subsequently, it also gives them duties. These duties make them better citizens and are also important for their overall development.

Most importantly, in a democracy, the people form the government. So, this selection of the government by the citizens gives everyone a chance to work for their country. It allows the law to prevail efficiently as the rules are made by people whom they have selected.

In addition, democracy allows people of various religions and cultures to exist peacefully. It makes them live in harmony with one another. People of democracy are more tolerant and accepting of each other’s differences. This is very important for any country to be happy and prosper.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

India: A Democratic Country

India is known to be the largest democracy all over the world. After the rule of the British ended in 1947 , India adopted democracy. In India, all the citizens who are above the age of 18 get the right to vote. It does not discriminate on the basis of caste, creed, gender, color, or more.

Although India is the largest democracy it still has a long way to go. The country faces a lot of problems which do not let it efficiently function as a democracy. The caste system is still prevalent which hampers with the socialist principle of democracy. Moreover, communalism is also on the rise. This interferes with the secular aspect of the country. All these differences need to be set aside to ensure the happiness and prosperity of the citizens.

In short, democracy in India is still better than that in most of the countries. Nonetheless, there is a lot of room for improvement which we must focus on. The government must implement stringent laws to ensure no discrimination takes place. In addition, awareness programs must be held to make citizens aware of their rights and duties.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

300 Questions and Images to Inspire Argument Writing

Recent Student Opinion and Picture Prompts, categorized by topic, to help students discover the issues that matter to them.

By The Learning Network

Update: This list is available as a PDF .

If you’ve taught argument writing with our resources in the past, you already know we ask a fresh question every day as part of our long-running Student Opinion series . Teenagers around the world are invited to visit and post their thoughts on topics including politics, medical ethics, fashion, sports and entertainment.

We’ve rounded up lists of these prompts in the past, but this year we’re doing something new: Below you can find a categorized collection of all our recent, relevant Student Opinion questions, but alongside them we’re also including related Picture Prompts. These short, image-based forums are accessible to learners of all ages, but still provide engaging jumping-off points to help students make and support claims.

For instance, let’s say your class is interested in meme culture. A Student Opinion question asks, “ Do Memes Make the Internet a Better Place? ” and invites students to read and weigh in on a New York Times article that examines the role of memes in how teenagers process world events. Over 700 students have already submitted their thoughts .

But if you scan the “Technology and Social Media” category below, you’ll see we also have a Picture Prompt that asks a more direct, concrete question: “ What are your favorite memes? ” For many, that may be a fun, comfortable place to start.

So give your students both “voice and choice” by inviting them to find the questions and format that speak to them. All the prompts below are still open for comment. We look forward to seeing which ones inspire the most passionate arguments, and we invite your class to submit the results to our Eighth Annual Editorial Contest .

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Democracy Essay for Students in English

Essay on Democracy

Introduction.

Democracy is mainly a Greek word which means people and their rules, here peoples have the to select their own government as per their choice. Greece was the first democratic country in the world. India is a democratic country where people select their government of their own choice, also people have the rights to do the work of their choice. There are two types of democracy: direct and representative and hybrid or semi-direct democracy. There are many decisions which are made under democracies. People enjoy few rights which are very essential for human beings to live happily. 

Our country has the largest democracy. In a democracy, each person has equal rights to fight for development. After the independence, India has adopted democracy, where the people vote those who are above 18 years of age, but these votes do not vary by any caste; people from every caste have equal rights to select their government. Democracy, also called as a rule of the majority, means whatever the majority of people decide, it has to be followed or implemented, the representative winning with the most number of votes will have the power. We can say the place where literacy people are more there shows the success of the democracy even lack of consciousness is also dangerous in a democracy. Democracy is associated with higher human accumulation and higher economic freedom. Democracy is closely tied with the economic source of growth like education and quality of life as well as health care. The constituent assembly in India was adopted by Dr B.R. Ambedkar on 26 th November 1949 and became sovereign democratic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950.

What are the Challenges:

There are many challenges for democracy like- corruption here, many political leaders and officers who don’t do work with integrity everywhere they demand bribes, resulting in the lack of trust on the citizens which affects the country very badly. Anti-social elements- which are seen during elections where people are given bribes and they are forced to vote for a particular candidate. Caste and community- where a large number of people give importance to their caste and community, therefore, the political party also selects the candidate on the majority caste. We see wherever the particular caste people win the elections whether they do good for the society or not, and in some cases, good leaders lose because of less count of the vote.

India is considered to be the largest democracy around the globe, with a population of 1.3 billion. Even though being the biggest democratic nation, India still has a long way to becoming the best democratic system. The caste system still prevails in some parts, which hurts the socialist principle of democracy. Communalism is on the rise throughout the globe and also in India, which interferes with the secular principle of democracy. All these differences need to be set aside to ensure a thriving democracy.

Principles of Democracy:

There are mainly five principles like- republic, socialist, sovereign, democratic and secular, with all these quality political parties will contest for elections. There will be many bribes given to the needy person who require food, money, shelter and ask them to vote whom they want. But we can say that democracy in India is still better than the other countries.

Basically, any country needs democracy for development and better functioning of the government. In some countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are considered to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own interests.

Let us Discuss These Five Principles in Further Detail

Sovereign: In short, being sovereign or sovereignty means the independent authority of a state. The country has the authority to make all the decisions whether it be on internal issues or external issues, without the interference of any third party.

Socialist: Being socialist means the country (and the Govt.), always works for the welfare of the people, who live in that country. There should be many bribes offered to the needy person, basic requirements of them should be fulfilled by any means. No one should starve in such a country.

Secular: There will be no such thing as a state religion, the country does not make any bias on the basis of religion. Every religion must be the same in front of the law, no discrimination on the basis of someone’s religion is tolerated. Everyone is allowed to practice and propagate any religion, they can change their religion at any time.

Republic: In a republic form of Government, the head of the state is elected, directly or indirectly by the people and is not a hereditary monarch. This elected head is also there for a fixed tenure. In India, the head of the state is the president, who is indirectly elected and has a fixed term of office (5 years).

Democratic: By a democratic form of government, means the country’s government is elected by the people via the process of voting. All the adult citizens in the country have the right to vote to elect the government they want, only if they meet a certain age limit of voting.

Merits of Democracy:

better government forms because it is more accountable and in the interest of the people.

improves the quality of decision making and enhances the dignity of the citizens.

provide a method to deal with differences and conflicts.

A democratic system of government is a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections. It permits citizens to participate in making laws and public policies by choosing their leaders, therefore citizens should be educated so that they can select the right candidate for the ruling government. Also, there are some concerns regarding democracy- leaders always keep changing in democracy with the interest of citizens and on the count of votes which leads to instability. It is all about political competition and power, no scope for morality.

Factors Affect Democracy:

capital and civil society

economic development

modernization

Norway and Iceland are the best democratic countries in the world. India is standing at fifty-one position.

India is a parliamentary democratic republic where the President is head of the state and Prime minister is head of the government. The guiding principles of democracy such as protected rights and freedoms, free and fair elections, accountability and transparency of government officials, citizens have a responsibility to uphold and support their principles. Democracy was first practised in the 6 th century BCE, in the city-state of Athens. One basic principle of democracy is that people are the source of all the political power, in a democracy people rule themselves and also respect given to diverse groups of citizens, so democracy is required to select the government of their own interest and make the nation developed by electing good leaders.

FAQs on Democracy Essay for Students in English

1. What are the Features of Democracy?

Features of Democracy are as follows

Equality: Democracy provides equal rights to everyone, regardless of their gender, caste, colour, religion or creed.

Individual Freedom: Everybody has the right to do anything they want until it does not affect another person’s liberty.

Majority Rules: In a democracy, things are decided by the majority rule, if the majority agrees to something, it will be done.

Free Election: Everyone has the right to vote or to become a candidate to fight the elections.

2. Define Democracy?

Democracy means where people have the right to choose the rulers and also people have freedom to express views, freedom to organise and freedom to protest. Protesting and showing Dissent is a major part of a healthy democracy. Democracy is the most successful and popular form of government throughout the globe.

Democracy holds a special place in India, also India is still the largest democracy in existence around the world.

3. What are the Benefits of Democracy?

Let us discuss some of the benefits received by the use of democracy to form a government. Benefits of democracy are: 

It is more accountable

Improves the quality of decision as the decision is taken after a long time of discussion and consultation.

It provides a better method to deal with differences and conflicts.

It safeguards the fundamental rights of people and brings a sense of equality and freedom.

It works for the welfare of both the people and the state.

4. Which country is the largest democracy in the World?

India is considered the largest democracy, all around the world. India decided to have a democratic Govt. from the very first day of its independence after the rule of the British. In India, everyone above the age of 18 years can go to vote to select the Government, without any kind of discrimination on the basis of caste, colour, religion, gender or more. But India, even being the largest democracy, still has a long way to become perfect.

5. Write about the five principles of Democracy?

There are five key principles that are followed in a democracy. These Five Principles of Democracy of India are -  secular, sovereign, republic, socialist, and democratic. These five principles have to be respected by every political party, participating in the general elections in India. The party which got the most votes forms the government which represents the democratic principle. No discrimination is done on the basis of religion which represents the secular nature of democracy. The govt. formed after the election has to work for the welfare of common people which shows socialism in play.

The Top Ten Most-Read Essays of 2021

In 2021, democracy’s fortunes were tested, and a tumultuous world became even more turbulent. Democratic setbacks arose in places as far flung as Burma, El Salvador, Tunisia, and Sudan, and a 20-year experiment in Afghanistan collapsed in days. The world’s democracies were beset by rising polarization, and people watched in shock as an insurrection took place in the United States. In a year marked by high political drama, economic unrest, and rising assaults on democracy, we at the  Journal of Democracy  sought to provide insight and analysis of the forces that imperil freedom. Here are our 10 most-read essays of 2021:

Manuel Meléndez-Sánchez Nayib Bukele has developed a blend of political tactics that combines populist appeals and classic autocratic behavior with a polished social-media brand. It poses a dire threat to the country’s democratic institutions.

Democracy in Modern World Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The modern era in the world distribution of power and regime of authority is claimed to be the one of democracy. After centuries of slavery and inequality, of silent voices of the poor who had nothing else to do but to watch the rich distribute the riches of the world, as well as after the coming of Nazism that shook the global perception of the inherent right of a human being to life and decent living conditions the community came to understanding of the fact that urgent, drastic action has to be taken to make things change and to establish a new form of government that would enhance and promote equality, that would make everyone equal before the law. The reign of totalitarism over the significant part of the world called USSR also made people realize that the voice of masses should be taken into consideration when making significant decisions on the state level, which brought about high interest to democracy as a form of political power in a country.

Another favorable factor that increased the popularity of democracy was its successful implementation in the most advanced countries of Europe and in the USA. All these events in the world history strengthened the thought that democracy is the only right and progressive form of authority in a state that will finally bring the overall population of the state to coherence in the expression of their will as well as in the extent to which they can influence the state of affairs in their native state.

However, there is hardly anyone in the world who is ignorant about the origin of the word ‘democracy’ – it was used as long ago as in Ancient Greece and became the name for a form of ruling in Athens, the state that since then became the icon of implementing democracy in its daily governmental practices and did it, according to the accounts of peer historians, quite successfully. The modern society thus has to understand what the term originally meant, what were the democratic practices in Athens, what in general the Athenian democratic model looked like and what lessons contemporary states should learn to make their democracies true ones. To answer these questions more or less accurately it is appropriate to turn to the work of John Duhn titled Democracy in which the author investigated the rise and fall of this form of authority, took a deep look into what it actually was and observed the changes this notion suffered in the course of centuries. Nobody will argue that nowadays the true meaning of democracy has changed enormously, hence pushing the humanity to the necessity to look back and find what was lost in the course of history and what can aid the establishment of genuine democracies in the modern world.

Dunn at first accounts on what was called democracy in Athens, emphasizing the fact that the form of power originated as soon as the need to institutionalize power rose and the need for respect of the human dignity was recognized:

“This regime, which is called democracy (demokratia), because it is administered with a view to the interest of the many, not of the few, has not merely made Athens great. It has also rendered its citizens equal before the law in their private disputes, and equally free to compete for public honors by personal merit and exertion, or to seek to lead the city, irrespective of their own wealth or social background” (Dunn 26).

The difference from the usual distribution of power was astounding – never before poor people representing the majority of the nation (as usual) obtained the right to speak freely and to make their contribution in the evolution of their state. The main distinguishing peculiarities of democracy were, according to the opinion of Dunn, mutual politeness, deep respect to the law, determined openness of the state towards any other nation, sobriety in judgment, respect for wisdom etc (Dunn 26). Such qualities of any state would be highly desirable for any contemporary nation, and as soon as they were implemented and really worked in practice, the state would really be called a democracy.

Another peculiarity of a democracy established in Athens was that the power was factually concentrated in the hands of the poor, because the law protected them more as compared to the rich class and those who had a distinction in the state due to their wealth or origin:

“the democracy of Athens was a robust but flagrantly unedifying system of power, which subjected the nobler elements of its society to the meaner, transferred wealth purposefully from one to the other, and distributed the means of coercion clear-headedly and determinedly to cement this outcome and keep the nobler elements under control” (Dunn 28).

Though it is hard to imagine the form of power like that implemented in the modern times, still ideally a democracy had to look like that, and there is a clear and wise explanation for such a choice of preferences that is sadly neglected nowadays by the democratic power in the majority of countries. The upper class was always distinguished by certain power (due to origin or wealth they had an opportunity to influence the public opinion), so they represented a threat for the actual government of the democracy. For this reason all effort was directed at diminishing the upper class’s measures of influence and power, thus ensuring stability of power in a state.

Secondly, the nation was not only given the power – this power was effectively ensured by the law:

“The poorer majority of Athens’s citizens are very well advised to insist on their opportunity to share the public offices on which the safety or danger of the people depended, the roles of general or cavalry commander, not randomly across the citizen body but by popular election of those best equipped to hold them (inevitably, the wealthier and more powerful)” (Dunn 28)

So, what changed in the course of time shaping the modern understanding of the term ‘democracy’? What did the world community lose on their way to the long-wanted democracy and what should they take as lessons from the ancient times to make it truly effective? Much has to be done, according to the opinion of Dunn who undoubtedly admits how much has changed in the set of characteristics that used to be attributed to democracy and that are associated with it nowadays:

“Today the term democracy has become… too highly cathected: saturated with emotion, irradiated by passion, tugged to and fro and ever more overwhelmed by accumulated confusion. To rescue it as an aid in understanding politics, we need to think our way past a mass of history and block our ears to many pressing opportunities” (Dunn 39).

Democratic states that exist nowadays have proclaimed the power of the nation due to the severe and cruel fight for the rights of man initiated in different parts of the world in different periods of time (it is enough to recollect the French Revolution or the October Revolution in the Russian Empire) – these multiple facts show how badly people needed and wanted it. On getting it, they appointed those figures who they considered able to control the affairs in their country and who were subordinate to the will of the nation to expression of which it was lawfully entitled under the conditions of a democracy. But can anyone nowadays state absolutely confidently that the principles of equality are realized in his or her country to the fullest extent? There hardly be anyone like that.

Reasons for disillusionment can be found in the power of the few that is seen nowadays and that cannot be neglected – in contrast to the ancient times, people in modern democratic states can hardly be sure that they all will be equal before the law and that their opinion matters as much as the opinion of the ruling class. Masses still express their opinion at public referenda and during elections, during polls that are arranged to keep track of the public opinion and to try to shape the country’s policy according to it. But in fact the power has long ago gone to the hands of those few who have the power and the wealth to dictate their own conditions for the world order. This change happened as soon as our society entered the era of consumerism, the epoch of business that can be run in any sphere of human lives.

It is enough to recollect the whole arsenal of mass persuasion means like mass media – every day they shape the public opinion to make people think that they really want this or that while in fact they are only told to want that. Learning from the experience of Athens one should ask him/herself a question of whether he or she truly wants something or the life they lead is only a series of responses to marketing campaigns tested on them. The true wishes of the nation are lost in never-ending political races for power, promises and appeals designed to raise the wish to vote but not the wish to want something genuinely.

One more lesson that can be taken from the Athenian model of democracy is to encourage deep respect of law and wisdom in a state. Despite the simplicity of this lesson, it is hard to find a state where law is respected as the objective, strong intermediary between the nation and the state, as well as between the members of one nation. Nowadays law has become so sophisticated and unintelligible that people do not believe in its power to protect them anymore and do their best to cheat on it. Nonetheless, if the law were simpler to comprehend for an average citizen of the country, and there were multiple examples of its enactment disregarding the class and the power of a person, law would be respected much more, and it would be observed much more obediently by all people without exception. As for wisdom, the lesson pertains to the authoritative representatives of power in the modern period of time. They are too obsessed by the rhetoric they apply to influence the minds of people that they can hardly focus on the wisdom of their expression. Wisdom has been substituted by persuasion in lack of understanding of the fact that true wisdom does not require any persuasion; it will reach its goal for sure.

Nonetheless, no matter how great the ancient idea of democracy may sound, there is a fresher, more objective and, logically, more critical viewpoint of its essence:

“The brilliant “democracy” of Athens was stained by slavery (and also by the exclusion of women); while in extending their dominion, the Romans never made it possible for those who could not easily get to the city of Rome to participate effectively in governing the republic” (Dahl 5).

As one can see, slavery really existed next to democracy, and the state was called in such a way because slaves were not considered people equal to the public of Athens. As in the case of the slave past of the USA, even the poorest and the most miserable citizen of the country was still considered much higher in position than a slave. Another remark as for the democracy in its pure form is that it cannot last for long – according to observations of Dunn (45), any constraint applied to the nation will be regarded as enslavement, and the chaos that can follow such rejection can be taken under control only with the help of tyranny. This is why pure democracies do not exist; however, there is always an ideal form to which each state may long.

As it may be seen from the present account of democracy nowadays and several millenniums ago, there can hardly be a single definition of a genuine democratic state that will correspond to all requirements of the notion. Even under the conditions of Athens being considered the ideal state with the democratic form of governing, there are many remarks that throw a shadow on the democracy it really represented. Still, there is much to be done to ensure democracy in modern states, which can be done with the help of looking back and learning from the lessons, mistakes and victories of the past.

Dahl, Robert. After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society . Yale University Press, 1970.

Dunn, John. Democracy: A History . Open City Books, 2005.

• Democracy Is the Best Form of Government for All the World’s Inhabitants
• The Republican Party: History, Key Players and Fundamental Beliefs
• Sharpe BMW: Implementing the Bonus Payment Plan
• Aspects of Informational Privacy
• Case Analysis: Sharpe BMW Car Dealership and Service Centre
• Elitism vs. Egalitarianism
• Democrats vs. Republicans: Who Is Superior?
• Constitutionalism & Absolutism
• Absolute and Constitutional Monarchy
• Isolationism or Internationalism in Foreign Policy?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 10). Democracy in Modern World. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/

"Democracy in Modern World." IvyPanda , 10 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Democracy in Modern World'. 10 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Democracy in Modern World." December 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/.

1. IvyPanda . "Democracy in Modern World." December 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Democracy in Modern World." December 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Normative democratic theory deals with the moral foundations of democracy and democratic institutions, as well as the moral duties of democratic representatives and citizens. It is distinct from descriptive and explanatory democratic theory, which aim to describe and explain how democracy and democratic institutions function. Normative democracy theory aims to provide an account of when and why democracy is morally desirable as well as moral principles for guiding the design of democratic institutions and the actions of citizens and representatives. Of course, normative democratic theory is inherently interdisciplinary and must draw on the results of political science, sociology, psychology, and economics in order to give concrete moral guidance.

This brief outline of normative democratic theory focuses attention on seven related issues. First, it proposes a definition of democracy. Second, it outlines different approaches to the question of why democracy is morally valuable at all. Third, it discusses the issue of whether and when democratic institutions have authority and different conceptions of the limits of democratic authority. Fourth, it explores the question of what it is reasonable to demand of citizens in large democratic societies. This issue is central to the evaluation of normative democratic theories. A large body of opinion has it that most classical normative democratic theory is incompatible with what we can reasonably expect from citizens. Fifth, it surveys different accounts of the proper characterization of equality in the processes of representation and the moral norms of representation. Sixth, it discusses the relationship between central findings in social choice theory and democracy. Seventh, it discusses the question of who should be included in the group that makes democratic decisions.

This entry focuses on issues in contemporary democratic theory. Although it mentions authors in the history of philosophy where relevant, it does not attempt to give a history of democratic theory. Readers interested in more in-depth discussions of historical figures important to the development of democratic theory are advised to look at the entries listed in the “Historical Figures” section towards the end of this entry.

1. Democracy Defined

2.1.1.1 the production of relatively good laws and policies: responsiveness theories, 2.1.1.2 the production of relatively good laws and policies: epistemic theories, 2.1.1.3 character-based arguments, 2.1.1.4 economic justifications of democracy, 2.1.2 instrumental arguments against democracy, 2.1.3 grounds for instrumentalism, 2.2.1 liberty, 2.2.2 democracy as public justification, 2.2.3 equality, 3.1 instrumentalist conceptions of democratic authority, 3.2.1 democracy as collective self-rule, 3.2.2 freedom and democratic authority, 3.2.3 equality and authority, 3.3.1 internal limits to democratic authority, 3.3.2 the problem of persistent minorities, 3.3.3 external limits to democratic authority, 4.1 the problem of democratic participation, 4.2.1 elite theory of democracy, 4.2.2 interest group pluralism, 4.2.3 neo-liberalism.

• 4.2.4. The self-interest assumption

4.2.5 The Division of Democratic Labor

4.2.6 sortition, 4.3.1 the duty to vote, 4.3.2 principled disobedience of the law, 4.3.3 accommodate disagreement through compromise and consensus, 5.1 what sort of representative system is best, 5.2 the ethics of representation, 6. social choice and democracy, 7. the boundary problem: constituting the demos, 8. historical figures, other internet resources, related entries.

The term “democracy”, as we will use it in this entry, refers very generally to a method of collective decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the decision-making process. Four aspects of this definition should be noted. First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which we mean decisions that are made for groups and are meant to be binding on all the members of the group. Second, we intend for this definition to cover many different kinds of groups and decision-making procedures that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations. The definition is also consistent with different electoral systems, for example first-past-the-post voting and proportional representation. Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight. It is compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to a parliament where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including substantive equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building leading up to the vote. “Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct referenda of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to make the decisions.

The function of normative democratic theory is not to settle questions of definition but to determine which, if any, of the forms democracy may take are morally desirable and when and how. To evaluate different moral justifications of democracy, we must decide on the merits of the different principles and conceptions of human beings and society from which they proceed.

2. The Justification of Democracy

In this section, we examine different views concerning the justification of democracy. Proposed justifications of democracy identify values or reasons that support democracy over alternative forms of decision-making, such as oligarchy or dictatorship. It is important to distinguish views concerning the justification of democracy from views concerning the authority of democracy, which we examine in section 3 . Attempts to establish democratic authority identify values or reasons in virtue of which subjects have a duty to obey democratic decisions. Justification and authority can come apart (Simmons 2001: ch. 7)—it is possible to hold that the balance of values or reasons supports democracy over alternative forms of decision-making while denying that subjects have a duty to obey democratic decisions.

We can evaluate the justification of democracy along at least two different dimensions: instrumentally, by reference to the outcomes of using it compared with other methods of political decision; or intrinsically, by reference to values that are inherent in the method.

2.1 Instrumentalism

2.1.1 instrumental arguments in favor of democracy.

Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed to democracy: (1) the production of relatively good laws and policies and (2) improvements in the characters of the participants.

It is often argued that democratic decision-making best protects subjects’ rights or interests because it is more responsive to their judgments or preferences than competing forms of government. John Stuart Mill, for example, argues that since democracy gives each subject a share of political power, democracy forces decision-makers to take into account the rights and interests of a wider range of subjects than are taken into account under aristocracy or monarchy (Mill 1861: ch. 3). There is some evidence that as groups are included in the democratic process, their interests are better advanced by the political system. For example, when African Americans regained the right to vote in the United States in 1965, they were able to secure many more benefits from the state than previously (Wright 2013). Economists argue that democracy promotes economic growth (Acemoglu et al. 2019). Several contemporary authors defend versions of this instrumental argument by pointing to the robust empirical correlation between well-functioning democratic institutions and the strong protection of core liberal rights, such as rights to a fair trial, bodily integrity, freedom of association, and freedom of expression (Gaus 1996: ch. 13; Christiano 2011; Gaus 2011: ch. 22).

A related instrumental argument for democracy is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues that

no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press. (Sen 1999: 152)

The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor.

Epistemic justifications of democracy argue that, under the right conditions, democracy is generally more reliable than alternative methods at producing political decisions that are correct according to procedure-independent standards. While there are many different explanations for the reliability of democratic decision-making, we outline three of the most prominent explanations here: (1) Condorcet’s Jury Theorem, (2) the effects of cognitive diversity, and (3) information gathering and sharing.

The most prominent explanation for democracy’s epistemic reliability rests on Condorcet’s Jury Theorem (CJT), a mathematical theorem developed by eighteenth-century mathematician the Marquis de Condorcet that builds on the so-called “law of large numbers”. CJT states that, when certain assumptions hold, the probability that a majority of voters support the correct decision increases and approaches one as the number of voters increases. The assumptions are (Condorcet 1785):

• each voter is more likely than not to identify the correct decision (the competence assumption );
• voters vote for what they believe is the correct decision (the sincerity assumption );
• votes are statistically independent of one another (the independence assumption ).

While Condorcet’s original proof was restricted to decisions with only two choices, more recent work argues that CJT can be extended to decisions with three or more choices (List & Goodin 2001). The use of CJT to explain democracy’s reliability is often thought to originate with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s claim that

[i]f, when a sufficiently informed populace deliberates, the citizens were to have no communication among themselves, the general will would always result from the large number of small differences, and the deliberation would always be good. (Rousseau 1762: Book III, ch. IV)

Contemporary theorists continue to rely on CJT, or variants of it, to justify democracy (Barry 1965; Cohen 1986; Grofman and Feld 1988; Goodin & Spiekermann 2019).

The appeal of CJT for epistemic democrats derives from the fact that, if its underlying assumptions are satisfied, decisions produced by even moderately-sized electorates are almost certain to be correct. For example, if the assumptions of CJT hold for an electorate of 10,000 voters, and if each voter is 51 percent likely to identify the correct decision of two options, then the probability that a majority will select the correct decision is 99.97 percent. The formal mathematics of CJT are not subject to dispute. However, critics of CJT-based arguments for democracy argue that the assumptions underlying CJT are rarely, if ever, satisfied in actual democracies (see Black 1963: 159–65; Ladha 1992; Estlund 1997b; 2008: ch. XII; Anderson 2006). First, many have remarked that voters’ opinions are not independent of each other. Indeed, the democratic process seems to emphasize persuasion and coalition building. Second, the theorem does not seem to apply to cases in which the information that voters have access to, and on the basis of which they make their judgments, is segmented in various ways. Segmentation occurs when some sectors of the society do not have the relevant information while others do have it. Modern societies and politics seem to instantiate this kind of segmentation in terms of class, race, ethnic groupings, religion, occupational position, geographical place and so on. Finally, all voters approach issues they have to make decisions on with strong ideological biases that undermine the claim that each voter is bringing a kind of independent observation on the nature of the common good to the vote.

Advocates of CJT-based justifications of democracy generally respond to these sorts of criticisms by attempting to develop variations of CJT with weaker assumptions. These assumptions are more easily satisfied in democracies and so the revised theorems may show that even moderately-sized electorates are almost certain to produce correct decisions (Grofman & Feld 1988; Austen-Smith 1992; Austen-Smith & Banks 1996).

A second common epistemic justification for democracy—which is often traced to Aristotle ( Politics , Book II, Ch. 11; see Waldron 1995)—argues that democratic procedures are best able to exploit the underlying cognitive diversity of large groups of citizens to solve collective problems. Since democracy brings a lot of people into the process of decision making, it can take advantage of many sources of information and perspectives in assessing proposed laws and policies. More recently, Hélène Landemore (2013) has drawn on the “diversity-trumps-ability” theorem of Scott Page and Lu Hong (Hong & Page 2004; Page 2007)—which states that a random collection of agents drawn from a large set of limited-ability agents typically outperforms a collection of the very best agents from that same set—to argue that democracy can be expected to produce better decisions than rule by experts. Both Page and Hong’s original theorem and Landemore’s use of it to justify democracy are subject to dispute (see Quirk 2014; Brennan 2014; Thompson 2014; Bajaj 2014).

A third common epistemic justification for democracy relies on the idea that democratic decision-making tends to be more informed than other forms of decision-making about the interests of citizens and the causal mechanisms necessary to advance those interests. John Dewey argues that democracy involves “a consultation and a discussion which uncovers social needs and troubles”. Even if experts know how best to solve collective problems, they need input from the masses to correct their biases tell them where the problems lie (Dewey 1927 [2012: 154–155]; see also Marsilius [DP]; Anderson 2006; Knight & Johnson 2011).

Many have endorsed democracy on the grounds that democracy has beneficial effects on the characters of subjects. Many agree with Mill and Rousseau that democracy tends to make people stand up for themselves more than other forms of rule do because it makes collective decisions depend on their input more than monarchy or aristocracy do. Hence, in democratic societies individuals are encouraged to be more autonomous. Relatedly, by giving citizens a share of control over political-decision-making, democracy cultivates citizens with active and productive characters rather than passive characters. In addition, it has been argued that democracy tends to get people to think carefully and rationally more than other forms of rule because it makes a difference to political outcomes whether they do or not. Finally, some argue that democracy tends to enhance the moral qualities of citizens. When they participate in making decisions, they have to listen to others, they are called upon to justify themselves to others and they are forced to think in part in terms of the interests of others. Some have argued that when people find themselves in this kind of circumstance, they can be expected genuinely to think in terms of the common good and justice. Hence, some have argued that democratic processes tend to enhance the autonomy, rationality, activity, and morality of participants. Since these beneficial effects are thought to be worthwhile in themselves, they count in favor of democracy and against other forms of rule (Mill 1861 [1991: 74]; Elster 1986 [2003: 152]; Hannon 2020).

Some argue in addition that the above effects on character tend to enhance the quality of legislation as well. A society of autonomous, rational, active, and moral decision-makers is more likely to produce good legislation than a society ruled by a self-centered person or a small group of persons who rule over slavish and unreflective subjects. Of course, the soundness of any of the above arguments depends on the truth of the causal theories of the consequences of different institutions.

There are a number of economic justifications of democratic institutions. They proceed from the idea that preferences are given and that institutions are justified in terms of how citizens, given their preferences, would rationally want their society to be organized. The two accounts we mention here are in a broadly contractarian tradition, which seeks to determine what persons would agree to as a framework for collective decision making. Probably the most famous of these efforts and the one that has led to the highly fruitful research program of public choice theory is that of James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock in their classic work The Calculus of Consent (1963). They argue that something like constitutional democracy could arise from a state of nature in which persons, with their basic natural and property rights protected, would agree to a collective decision procedure. The basic preference structure is self-interest in which persons attempt to maximize the stream of benefits to themselves. Individuals desire a collective decision-making apparatus in order to take care of problems that arise in the state of nature from uncontrolled external costs and public bads, which are costs that arise for everyone because no individual has incentive to limit them. External costs are costs that persons impose others without their consent. Hence, the purpose of the collective decision making is to take care of problems that arise when markets are inefficient because of externalities and public bads. The design of the decision procedure is meant to minimize two kinds of costs: external costs and decision costs. Decision costs are costs that arise from the difficulty of making collective decisions. Such decision making takes time and resources. Here is the basic calculation each person considers when choosing a collective decision procedure. On the one hand, they consider the external costs imposed on them if the decision procedure is not a unanimity procedure. Each person reflects that as the decision procedure approximates unanimity the chance of external costs imposed on them goes to zero. Taking the external costs of the procedure alone into account each prefers unanimity. On the other hand, each person considers the decision costs of a collective procedure. Here, as the decision procedure approaches unanimity the decision costs grow extremely large because of all the haggling such a procedure would generate. The procedure each person would choose under the circumstances would attempt to minimize the combination of these two costs. It would be a procedure that is close to majority rule, though there is no reason to suppose that majority rule itself would be chosen.

One objection is that the assumptions behind the argument are too strong. Buchanan and Tullock argue that this process would lead to unanimous agreement on a collective decision procedure under certain assumptions such as individuals cannot be divided into groups with strongly opposed interests and when individuals are sufficiently uncertain of their fates in the long term that their interests become more or less the same. They are in effect behind a veil of ignorance with regard to the future. These assumptions have been contested as descriptions of any plausible circumstances in which societies find themselves.

Another broadly economic approach can be found in Douglas Rae (1969). Rae argues that individuals with preferences over social states would generally prefer majority rule over the long run because majority rule maximizes the chances of the satisfaction of their preferences. The Rae-Taylor theorem states that if each individual has an equal prior probability of preferring each of the two alternatives, majority rule maximizes each individual’s expected utility (see the Section 2.4 of the entry on social choice theory ). Again the background assumption is that people don’t know how often they fall in the majority or minority and don’t have any special preference for the status quo. Under these circumstances, one gets what one wants more often from a collective decision procedure when it is majoritarian (see also Coleman [1989]).

Not all instrumental arguments favor democracy. Plato argues that democracy is inferior to various forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy on the grounds that democracy tends to undermine the expertise necessary to the proper governance of societies (Plato 1974, Book VI). Most people do not have the kinds of intellectual talents that enable them to think well about the difficult issues that politics involves. But in order to win office or get a piece of legislation passed, politicians must appeal to these people’s sense of what is right or not right. Hence, the state will be guided by very poorly worked out ideas that experts in manipulation and mass appeal use to help themselves win office. Plato argues instead that the state should be ruled by philosopher-kings who have the wisdom and moral character required for good rule. He thus defends a version of what David Estlund calls “epistocracy”, a form of oligarchy that involves rule by experts (Estlund 2003).

Mill defends a form of epistocracy that is sometimes referred to as the “plural voting” scheme (1861: ch. 4). While all rational adults get at least one vote under this scheme, some citizens get a greater number of votes based on satisfying some measure of political expertise. While Mill identifies the relevant measure of expertise in terms of formal education, the plural voting scheme is consistent with other measures. This scheme might be thought to combine the instrumental value of political expertise with the intrinsic value of broad inclusion.

One objection to any form of epistocracy—the demographic objection —holds that any criterion of expertise is likely to select demographically homogeneous individuals who are be biased in ways that undermine their ability to produce political outcomes that promote the general welfare (Estlund 2003).

Hobbes argues that democracy is inferior to monarchy because democracy fosters destabilizing dissension among subjects (Hobbes 1651: chap. XIX). On his view, individual citizens and even politicians are apt not to have a sense of responsibility for the quality of legislation because no one makes a significant difference to the outcomes of decision making. As a consequence, citizens’ concerns are not focused on politics and politicians succeed only by making loud and manipulative appeals to citizens in order to gain more power, but all lack incentives to consider views that are genuinely for the common good. Hence the sense of lack of responsibility for outcomes undermines politicians’ concern for the common good and inclines them to make sectarian and divisive appeals to citizens.

Many contemporary theorists expand on these Platonic and Hobbesian criticisms. A good deal of empirical data shows that citizens of large-scale democracies are ill-informed and apathetic about politics. This makes room for special interests to control the behavior of politicians and use the state for their own limited purposes all the while spreading the costs to everyone. Moreover, there is empirical evidence that democratic citizens often engage in motivated reasoning that unconsciously aims to affirm their existing political identities rather than arrive at correct judgments (Lord, Ross, & Lepper 1979; Bartels 2002; Kahan 2013; Achen & Bartels 2016). Some theorists argue that these considerations justify abandoning democracy altogether, while modest versions of these arguments have been used to justify modification of democratic institutions (Caplan 2007; Somin 2013; Brennan 2016). Relatedly, some theorists argue that rather than having beneficial effects on the characters of subjects as Mill and others argue, democracy actually has deleterious effects on the subjects’ characters and relationships (Brennan 2016: ch. 3).

Pure instrumentalists argue that these instrumental arguments for and against the democratic process are the only bases on which to evaluate the justification of democracy or compare it with other forms of political decision-making. There are a number of different kinds of argument for pure instrumentalism. One kind of argument proceeds from a more general moral theory. For example, classical utilitarianism has no room in its monistic axiology for the intrinsic values of fairness and liberty or the intrinsic importance of an egalitarian distribution of political power. Its sole concern with maximizing utility—understood as pleasure or desire satisfaction—guarantees that it can provide only instrumental arguments for and against democracy.

But one need not be a thoroughgoing utilitarian to argue for instrumentalism in democratic theory. There are arguments in favor of instrumentalism that pertain directly to the question of democracy and collective decision making generally. One argument states that political power involves the exercise of power of some over others. And it argues that the exercise of power of one person over another can only be justified by reference to the protection of the interests or rights of the person over whom power is exercised. Thus no distribution of political power could ever be justified except by reference to the quality of outcomes of the decision making process (Arneson 1993 [2002: 96–97]; 2003; 2004; 2009). Another sort of argument for instrumentalism proceeds negatively, attempting to show that the non-instrumental values most commonly used in attempted justifications for democracy do not actually justify democracy, and that an instrumental justification for democracy is therefore the only available sort of justification (Wall 2007).

Other arguments question the coherence of the idea of intrinsically fair collective decision making processes. For instance, social choice theory questions the idea that there can be a fair decision making function that transforms a set of individual preferences into a rational collective preference. The core objection is that no general rule satisfying reasonable constraints can be devised that can transform any set of individual preferences into a rational social preference. And this is taken to show that democratic procedures cannot be intrinsically fair (Riker 1982: 116). Ronald Dworkin argues that the idea of equality, which is for him at the root of social justice, cannot be given a coherent and plausible interpretation when it comes to the distribution of political power among members of the society. The relation of politicians to citizens inevitably gives rise to inequality; the process of democratic deliberation inevitably gives those with superior argument making abilities and greater willingness to participate more influence and therefore more power, than others, so equality of political power cannot be intrinsically fair or just (Dworkin 2000). In later work, Dworkin has pulled back from this originally thoroughgoing instrumentalism (Dworkin 1996).

2.2 Non-instrumentalism

Few theorists deny that political institutions must be at least in part evaluated in terms of the outcomes of having those institutions. Some argue in addition, that some forms of decision making are morally desirable independent of the consequences of having them. A variety of different approaches have been used to show that democracy has this kind of intrinsic value.

One prominent justification for democracy appeals to the value of liberty. According to one version of the view, democracy is grounded in the idea that each ought to be master of his or her life. Each person’s life is deeply affected by the larger social, legal and cultural environment in which he or she lives. Only when each person has an equal voice and vote in the process of collective decision-making will each have equal control over this larger environment. Thinkers such as Carol Gould conclude that only when some kind of democracy is implemented, will individuals have a chance at self-government (Gould 1988: 45–85; see also Marsilius [DP]). Since individuals have a right of self-government, they have a right to democratic participation. The idea is that the right of self-government gives one a right, within limits, to do wrong. Just as an individual has a right to make some bad decisions for himself or herself, so a group of individuals have a right to make bad or unjust decisions for themselves regarding those activities they share.

One major difficulty with this line of argument is that it appears to require that the basic rule of decision-making be consensus or unanimity. If each person must freely choose the outcomes that bind him or her then those who oppose the decision are not self-governing. They live in an environment imposed on them by others. So only when all agree to a decision are they freely adopting the decision (Wolff 1970: ch. 2). The trouble is that there is rarely agreement on major issues in politics. Indeed, it appears that one of the main reasons for having political decision making procedures is that they can settle matters despite disagreement.

One liberty-based argument that might seem to escape this worry appeals to an irreducibly collective right to self-determination. It is often argued that political communities have a right as a community to organize themselves politically in accordance with their values, principles, or commitments. Some argue that the right to collective self-determination requires democratic institutions that give citizens collective control over their political and legal structure (Cassese 1995). However, many argue democratic institutions are sufficient but not necessary to realize the right to collective self-determination because political communities might exercise this right to implement non-democratic institutions (Altman & Wellman 2009; Stilz 2016).

Another non-instrumental justification of democracy appeals to the ideal of public justification. The idea behind this approach is that laws and policies are legitimate to the extent that they are publicly justified to the citizens of the community. Public justification is justification to each citizen as a result of free and reasoned debate among equals.

Jürgen Habermas’s discourse theory of deliberative democracy has been highly influential in the development of this approach. Habermas analyses the form and function of modern legal systems through the lens of his theory of communicative action. This analysis yields the Democratic Principle:

[O]nly those statutes may claim legitimacy that can meet with the assent of all citizens in a discursive process of legislation that in turn has been legally constituted. (Habermas 1992 [1996: 110])

Habermas advances a conception of democratic legitimacy according to which law is legitimate only if it results from a free and inclusive democratic process of “opinion and will-formation”. What might such a process look like in a complex and differentiated society? Habermas answers by advancing a “two-track” model that understands democratic legitimation in terms of the relationship between institutionalized deliberative bodies (e.g legislatures, agencies, courts) and informal communication in the public sphere, which is “wild”, and not centrally coordinated.

One possible objection to this view is that free and inclusive democratic procedures are insufficient to satisfy the demand for deliberative consensus embodied in the Democratic Principle. This demand is unlikely to be satisfied in diverse societies, since deep disagreements about which laws ought to be enacted is likely to remain after the relevant process of opinion and will-formation. The Democratic Principle might thus be thought to embody an overly idealistic conception of democratic legitimacy (Estlund 2008: ch.10). Another possible worry is that the Discourse Principle is not a genuine moral principle, but a principle that embodies the felicity conditions of practical discourse. As such, the Discourse Principle cannot ground a conception of democratic legitimacy that yields robust moral prescriptions (Forst 2016).

Drawing on Habermas and John Rawls, among others, Joshua Cohen (1996 [2003]) develops a conception of democracy in which citizens justify laws and policies on the basis of mutually acceptable reasons. Democracy, properly understood, is the context in which individuals freely engage in a process of reasoned discussion and deliberation on an equal footing. The ideas of freedom and equality provide guidelines for structuring democratic institutions.

The aim of Cohen’s conception of democracy as public justification is reasoned consensus among citizens. But a serious problem arises when we ask about what happens when disagreement remains. Two possible replies have been suggested. It has been urged that forms of consensus weaker than full consensus are sufficient for public justification and that the weaker varieties are achievable in many societies. For instance, there may be consensus on the list of reasons that are acceptable publicly but disagreement on the weight of the different reasons. Or there may be agreement on general reasons abstractly understood but disagreement about particular interpretations of those reasons. What would have to be shown here is that such weak consensus is achievable in many societies and that the disagreements that remain are not incompatible with the ideal of public justification.

The basic principle seems to be the principle of reasonableness according to which reasonable persons will only offer principles for the regulation of their society that other reasonable persons can reasonably accept. One only offers principles that others, who restrain themselves in the same way, can accept. Such a principle implies a kind of principle of restraint which requires that reasonable persons avoid proposing laws and policies on the basis of controversial moral or philosophical principles. When individuals offer proposals for the regulation of their society, they ought not to appeal to the whole truth as they see it but only to that part of the whole truth that others can reasonably accept. To put the matter in the way Rawls puts it: political society must be regulated by principles on which there is an overlapping consensus (Rawls 2005: Lecture IV). This is meant to obviate the need for a complete consensus on the principles that regulate society.

However, it is hard to see how this approach avoids the need for a complete consensus, which is highly unlikely to occur in any even moderately diverse society. The reason for this is that it is not clear why it is any less of an imposition on me when I propose legislation or policies for the society that I must restrain myself to considerations that other reasonable people accept than it is an imposition on others when I attempt to pass legislation on the basis of reasons they reasonably reject. For if I do restrain myself in this way, then the society I live in will not live up to the standards that I believe are essential to evaluating the society. I must then live in and support a society that does not accord with my conception of how it ought to be organized. It is not clear why this is any less of a loss of control over society than for those who must live in a society that is partly regulated by principles they do not accept. If one is a problem, then so is the other, and complete consensus is the only solution (Christiano 2009).

Many democratic theorists have argued that democracy is a way of treating persons as equals when there is good reason to impose some kind of organization on their shared lives but they disagree about how best to do it. Peter Singer argues that when people insist on different ways of arranging matters properly, each person in a sense claims a right to be dictator over their shared lives (Singer 1973: 30–41). But these claims to dictatorship cannot all hold up. Democracy embodies a kind of peaceful and fair compromise among these conflicting claims to rule. Each compromises equally on what he claims as long as the others do, resulting in each having an equal say over decision making. In effect, democratic decision making respects each person’s point of view on matters of common concern by giving each an equal say about what to do in cases of disagreement (Singer 1973; Waldron 1999: chap. 5).

What if people disagree on the democratic method or on the particular form democracy is to take? Are we to decide these latter questions by means of a higher order procedure? And if there is disagreement on the higher order procedure, must we also democratically decide that question? The view seems to lead to an infinite regress.

An alternative way of justifying democracy on the basis of equality is to ground democracy in public equality. Public equality is a principle of equality which ensures that people can see that they are being treated as equals. This view arises from three ideas. First, there is the basic egalitarian idea that people’s interests ought to be equally advanced, or at least that they ought to have equal opportunities to advance them. Second, human beings generally have highly fallible and biased understandings of their own and other people’s interests. Third, persons have fundamental interests in being able to see that they are being treated as equals. Public equality is an egalitarian principle that can be seen to be realized among persons despite the dramatically incomplete forms of knowledge people have. It is not all of justice, but it is essential that the principle be realized in a pluralistic society.

Democracy is a uniquely publicly egalitarian way to make collective decisions when there is substantial disagreement and conflict of interest among persons about how to shape the society they share. Each can see that the only plausible way of overcoming persistent disagreement over how to shape the society they all live in, while still publicly treating all persons as equals in the face of bias and fallibility, is to give each person an equal say in the process of shaping that society. Thus, democracy is necessary to the realization of public equality in a political society. Within the framework determined by this publicly realized equality, persons are permitted to attempt to bring about their more particular ideas about justice and the common good that they think are right.

The idea of public equality also grounds limits to democratic decision making. The thought is that a society cannot democratically decide to abolish the democratic rights of some of its members. Public equality also requires that basic liberal and civil rights be respected as well, by the democratic process and so serves as a limit to democratic decision making (Christiano 2008; Valentini 2013).

A number of worries attend this kind of view. First, it is generally thought that majority rule is required for treating persons as equals in collective decision making. This is because only majority rule is neutral towards alternatives in decision making. Unanimity tends to favor the status quo as do various forms of supermajority rule. But if this is so, the above view raises the twin dangers of majority tyranny and of persistent minorities, i.e., groups of persons who find themselves always losing in majority decisions. Surely these latter phenomena must be incompatible with public equality. Second, the kind of view defended above is susceptible to the worry that political equality is not a coherent ideal in any modern state with a complex division of labor and the need for representation. This last worry will be discussed in more detail in the next sections on democratic citizenship and legislative representation. The first worry will be discussed more in the discussion on the limits to democratic authority.

A related approach grounds democracy in the ideal of relational equality . A concern with relational equality is a concern for

human relationships that are, in certain crucial respects at least, unstructured by differences of rank, power, or status. (Scheffler 2010: 225)

Niko Kolodny argues that democratic institutions are an essential component of relational equality (Kolodny 2014a,b). One line of Kolodny’s argument holds that political decisions involve the use of coercive force. Inequalities in the power to use force undermine equal social status at least in part because the power to use force is “the power that usually determines the distribution of other powers” (Kolodny 2014b: 307). Individuals who have superior power to use force on others have a superior social status. An egalitarian distribution of political power is thus essential for realizing social equality. And only democratic institutions provide an egalitarian distribution of political power. We will discuss the relationship between relational equality and democracy further when we discuss the authority of democracy in Part 3 below.

3. The Authority of Democracy

Since democracy is a collective decision process, the question naturally arises about whether there is any duty of citizens to obey democratic decisions when they disagree with it.

There are three main concepts of the legitimate authority of the state. First, a state has legitimate authority to the extent that it is morally justified in coercively imposing its rule on the members. Legitimate authority on this account has no direct implications concerning the obligations or duties that citizens may hold toward that state. It simply says that if the state is morally justified in doing what it does, then it has legitimate authority. Second, a state has legitimate authority to the extent that its directives generate duties in citizens to obey. The duties of the citizens need not be owed to the state but they are real duties to obey. The third is that the state has a right to rule that is correlated with the citizens’ duty to it to obey it. This is the strongest notion of authority and it seems to be the core idea behind the legitimacy of the state. The idea is that when citizens disagree about law and policy it is important to be able to answer the question, who has the right to choose?

Instrumental arguments for democracy give some reason for why one ought to respect the democracy when one disagrees with its decisions. There may be many instrumental considerations that play a role in deciding on the question of whether one ought to obey. And these instrumental considerations are pretty much the same whether one is considering obedience to democracy or some other form of rule.

There is one instrumentalist approach which is quite unique to democracy and that seems to ground a strong conception of democratic authority. That is the epistemic approach inspired by the Condorcet Jury Theorem, which we discussed in section 2.1.1.2 above. There, we discussed a number of difficulties with the application of the Condorcet Jury Theorem to the case of voting in elections and referenda in large-scale democracies, including lack of independence, informational segmentation, and the existence of ideological biases.

One further worry about the Jury Theorem’s epistemic conceptions of authority is that it would prove too much since it undermines the common practice of the loyal opposition in democracies. If the background conditions of the Jury Theorem are met, a large-scale democracy majority is practically certain to produce the right decisions. On what basis can citizens in a political minority rationally hold on to their competing views? The members of the minority have a powerful reason for shifting their allegiance to the majority position, since each has very good reason to think that the majority is right. The epistemic conception of authority based on the Jury Theorem thus threatens to be objectionably authoritarian, since it looks like it demands not only obedience of action but obedience of thought as well. Even in scientific communities the fact that a majority of scientists favor a particular view does not make the minority scientists think that they are wrong, though it does perhaps give them pause (Goodin 2003: ch. 7).

Some theories of democratic authority combine instrumental and non-instrumental considerations. David Estlund argues that democratic procedures have legitimate authority because they are better than random and epistemically the best of the political systems that are acceptable to all reasonable citizens (Estlund 2008). They must be better than random because, otherwise, why wouldn’t we use a fair random procedure like a lottery or coin flip? Democratic authority must have an epistemic element. And the justification of democratic procedure must be acceptable to all reasonable citizens in order to respect their freedom and equality. Estlund’s conception of democratic authority—which he calls “epistemic proceduralism”— thus combines the ideal of public justification with a concern for the tendency of democracies to produce good decisions.

3.2 Intrinsic Conceptions of Democratic Authority

Some theorists argue that there is a special relation between democracy and legitimate authority grounded in the value of collective self-rule. John Locke argues that when a person consents to the creation of a political society, they necessarily consent to the use of majority rule in deciding how the political society is to be organized (Locke 1690: sec. 96). Locke thinks that majority rule is the natural decision rule when there is disagreement. He argues that a society is a kind of collective body that must move in the direction of the greater force. One way to understand this argument is as follows. If we think of each member of society as an equal and if we think that there is likely to be disagreement beyond the question of whether to join society or not, then we must accept majority rule as the appropriate decision rule. This interpretation of the greater force argument assumes that the expression “greater force” is to be understood in terms of the equal worth of each person’s interests and rights, so the society must go in the direction in which the greater number of persons wants it to go.

Locke thinks that a people, which is formed by individuals who consent to be members, could choose a monarchy by means of majority rule and so this argument by itself does not give us an argument for democracy. But Locke refers back to this argument when he defends the requirement of representative institutions for deciding when property may be regulated and taxes levied. He argues that a person must consent to the regulation or taxation of his property by the state. But he says that this requirement of consent is satisfied when a majority of the representatives of property holders consent to the regulation and taxation of property (Locke, 1690: sec. 140). This does seem to be moving towards a genuinely democratic conception of legitimate authority.

Rousseau argues that when individuals consent to form a political community, they agree to put themselves under the direction of the “general will” (Rousseau 1762). The general will is not a mere aggregation of individuals’ private wills. It is, rather, the will of the political community as a whole. And since the general will can only emerge as the product of a properly organized democratic procedure, individuals consent to put themselves under the direction of a properly organized democratic procedure. On one interpretation of Rousseau, democratic procedures are properly organized only when they (1) define rights that apply equally to all, (2) via a procedure that considers everyone’s interests equally, and (3) everyone who is coerced to obey the laws has a voice in that procedure.

There are at least two ways of understanding the idea of the general will. On what might be called the constitutive interpretation, the general will is constituted by the results of a properly organized democratic procedure. That is, the results of a properly organized democratic procedure are the general will in virtue of the fact that they emerge from a properly organized democratic procedure, and not because they reflect some procedure-independent truth about the common good. On what might be called the epistemic interpretation, the results of a properly organized democratic procedure are the way of tracking the procedure-independent truth about the common good. As we discussed in section 3.1 , Rousseau is often interpreted as appealing to Condorcet’s Jury Theorem to support the epistemic credentials of a properly organized democratic procedure.

Anna Stilz develops an account of democratic authority that appeals to the value of “freedom as independence” (Stilz 2009). Freedom as independence is freedom from being subject to the will of another. In order not to be subject to the will of others, individuals need property rights and a protected sphere of autonomy to pursue one’s plans. Drawing on Kant, Stilz argues that attempts by particular individuals, no matter how conscientious, to define and secure rights to property and autonomy in a state of nature will be inconsistent with freedom as independence. Such attempts unilaterally impose new obligations on others through acts of private will in the face of competing claims. But even if individuals in a state of nature do agree to a resolution of their competing claims, they are dependent on the will of others to honor this agreement. Stilz thus argues that justice must be administered by an authoritative legal system which can coercively impose one set of objective rules—rules we must respect even when we disagree—to adjudicate our conflicting claims. But if such a system is to be consistent with the freedom of subjects, it cannot be imposed by the private wills of rulers. The solution, Stilz argues, lies in Rousseau’s idea of the general will. When subjects obey the general will, they are not obeying the private will of any individual; they are obeying a will that arises from all and applies to all.

One worry with this account is that those who oppose democratically-enacted laws or policies can complain that those laws or policies are imposed against their will. Perhaps they are not subject to the will of a particular individual, but they are subject to the will of a majority. This might be thought to constitute a significant threat to individuals’ freedom as independence. Another worry, which Stilz’s view arguably inherits from Rousseau, is that the conditions for the general will to emerge are so demanding that the view implies that no state that exists or has existed has legitimate political authority. Stilz’s view might thus be thought to entail what A.J. Simmons calls “a posteriori anarchism” (Simmons 2001).

Another approach to democratic authority asserts that failing to obey the decisions of a democratic assembly amounts to treating one’s fellow citizens as inferiors (Christiano 2008: ch. 6). In the face of disagreement about substantive law and policy, democracy realizes a kind of public equality by giving each individual an equal say in determining which laws or policies will be enacted. Citizens who skirt laws made by suitably egalitarian procedures act contrary to the equal right of all citizens to have a say in making laws. Those who refuse to pay taxes or respect property laws on the grounds that they are unjust are affirming a superior right to that of others in determining how the shared aspects of social life ought to be arranged. Thus, they violate the duty to treat others publicly as equals. And there is reason to think this duty must normally have some pre-eminence. Public equality is the most important form of equality and democracy is required by public equality. The other forms of equality in play in substantive disputes about law and policy are ones about which people can have reasonable disagreements (within limits specified by the principle of public equality). Citizens thus have obligations to abide by the democratic process even if their favored conceptions of justice or equality are passed by in the decision making process.

Daniel Viehoff develops an egalitarian conception of democratic authority based on the ideal of relational equality (Viehoff 2014; see section 2.2.3 above for more on relational equality). Viehoff argues that relational equality is threatened by “subjection” in a relationship, which occurs when individuals have significantly different power over how they interact with and relate to one another. According to Viehoff, obeying the outcomes of egalitarian democratic procedures is necessary and sufficient for citizens to achieve coordination on common rules without subjection. It is sufficient because democratic procedures distribute decision-making power equally, which ensures that coordination is not determined by unequal power advantages. It is necessary because parties must set aside the considerations of greater and lesser power to realize non-subjection in their relationship.

Fabienne Peter develops a fairness-based conception of democratic authority that incorporates epistemic considerations (Peter 2008; 2009). Drawing on insights from proceduralist epistemology, Peter’s “pure epistemic proceduralism” holds that suitably egalitarian democratic decisions are binding at least in part because they result from a fair procedure of knowledge-production. This account differs from Estlund’s epistemic proceduralism (see section 5.1 above) because it does not condition the authority of democratic procedures on their ability to produce decisions that track the procedure-independent truth. Rather, the authority of democratic procedures is grounded in their fairness. And it differs from pure procedural accounts because the relevant notion of fairness is fairness in knowledge-production.

3.3 Limits to the Authority of Democracy

What are the limits to democratic authority? A limit to democratic authority is a principle violation of which defeats democratic authority. When the principle is violated by the democratic assembly, the assembly loses its authority in that instance or the moral weight of the authority is overridden. A number of different views have been offered on this issue. We can distinguish between internal and external limits to democratic authority. An internal limit arises from the constitutive requirements of the democratic process or from the principles that ground democracy. An external limit arises from principles that are independent of the values or requirements that ground democracy.

External limits to democratic authority are rebutting limits, which are principles that weigh against—and may sometimes outweigh the principles that ground democracy. So in a particular case, an individual may see that there are reasons to obey the assembly and some reasons against obeying the assembly and in the case at hand the reasons against obedience outweigh the reasons in favor of obedience. Internal limits to democratic authority are undercutting limits. These limits function not by weighing against the considerations in favor of authority, they undercut the considerations in favor of authority altogether; they simply short circuit the authority. When an undercutting limit is in play, it is not as if the principles which ground the limit outweigh the reasons for obeying the democratic assembly, it is rather that the reasons for obeying the democratic assembly are undermined altogether; they cease to exist or at least they are severely weakened.

Some have argued that the democratic process ought to be limited to decisions that are not incompatible with the proper functioning of the democratic process. So they argue that the democratic process may not legitimately take away the political rights of its citizens in good standing. It may not take away rights that are necessary to the democratic process such as freedom of association or freedom of speech. But these limits do not extend beyond the requirements for proper democratic functioning. They do not protect non political artistic speech or freedom of association in the case of non political activities (Ely 1980: chap. 4).

Another kind of internal limit is a limit that arises from the principles that underpin democracy. And the presence of this limit would seem to be necessary to making sense of the first limit because in order for the first limit to be morally important we need to know why a democracy ought to protect the democratic process.

Locke gives an account of the internal limits of democracy in his idea that there are certain things to which a citizen may not consent (Locke 1690: ch. XI). She may not consent to arbitrary rule or the violation of fundamental rights including democratic and liberal rights. Since consent is the basis of democratic authority for Locke, this account provides an explanation of the idea behind the first internal limit, that democracy may not be suspended by democratic means but it goes beyond that limit to suggest that rights that are not essentially connected with the exercise of the franchise may also not be violated because one may not consent to their violation.

More recently, Ronald Dworkin has defended an account of the limits of democratic authority (Dworkin 1996). He argues that democracy is justified by appeal to a principle of self-government. He argues that self-government cannot be realized unless all citizens are treated as full members of the political community, because, otherwise, they are not able to identify as members of the community. Among the conditions of full membership, he argues, are rights to be treated as equals and rights to have one’s moral independence respected. These principles support robust requirements of non-discrimination and of basic liberal rights.

The conception of democratic authority that grounds it in public equality also provides an account of the limits of that authority (Christiano 2008: ch. 6). Since democracy is founded in public equality, it may not violate public equality in any of its decisions. The basic idea is that overt violation of public equality by a democratic assembly undermines the claim that the democratic assembly embodies public equality. Democracy’s embodiment of public equality is conditional on its protecting public equality. To the extent that liberal rights are grounded in public equality and the provision of an economic minimum is also so grounded, this suggests that democratic rights and liberal rights and rights to an economic minimum create a limit to democratic authority. This account also provides a deep grounding for the kinds of limits to democratic authority defended in the first internal limit and it goes beyond these to the extent that protection of rights that are not connected with the exercise of the franchise is also necessary to public equality.

This account of the authority of democracy also provides some help with a vexing problem of democratic theory. This problem is the difficulty of persistent minorities. There is a persistent minority in a democratic society when that minority always loses in the voting. This is always a possibility in democracies because of the use of majority rule. If the society is divided into two or more highly unified voting blocks in which the members of each group votes in the same ways as all the other members of that group, then the group in the minority will find itself always on the losing end of the votes. This problem has plagued some societies, particularly those with indigenous peoples who live within developed societies. Though this problem is often connected with majority tyranny it is distinct from the problem of majority tyranny because it may be the case that the majority attempts to treat the minority well, in accordance with its conception of good treatment. It is just that the minority never agrees with the majority on what constitutes proper treatment. Being a persistent minority can be highly oppressive even if the majority does not try to act oppressively. This can be understood with the help of the very ideas that underpin democracy. Persons have interests in being able to correct for the cognitive biases of others and to be able to make the world in such a way that it makes sense to them. These interests are set back for a persistent minority since they never get their way.

The conception of democracy as grounded in public equality can shed light on this problem. It can say that the existence of a persistent minority violates public equality (Christiano 2008: chap. 7). In effect, a society in which there is a persistent minority is one in which that minority is being treated publicly as an inferior because it is clear that its fundamental interests are being set back. Hence to the extent that violations of public equality undercut the authority of a democratic assembly, the existence of a persistent minority undermines the authority of the democracy at least with respect to the minority. This suggests that certain institutions ought to be constructed so that the minority is not persistent.

One natural kind of limit to democratic authority is the external kind of limit. Here the idea is that there are certain considerations that favor democratic decision making and there are certain values that are independent of democracy that may be at issue in democratic decisions. For example, many theories recognize core liberal rights—such as rights to property, bodily integrity, and freedom of thought and expression—as external limits to democratic authority. Locke is often interpreted as arguing that individuals have natural rights to property in themselves and the external world that democratic laws must respect in order to have legitimate authority (Locke 1690).

Some views may assert that there are only external limits to democratic authority. But it is possible to think that there are both internal and external limits. Such an issue may arise in decisions to go to war, for example. In such decisions, one may have a duty to obey the decision of the democratic assembly on the grounds that this is how one treats one’s fellow citizens as equals but one may also have a duty to oppose the war on the grounds that the war is an unjust aggression against other people. To the extent that this consideration is sufficiently serious it may outweigh the considerations of equality that underpin democratic authority. Thus one may have an overall duty not to obey in this context. Issues of foreign policy in general seem to give rise to possible external limits to democracy.

4. The Demands of Democratic Participation

In this section, we examine the demands of participation in large-scale democracies. We begin by examining a core challenge to the idea that democratic citizens are capable of governing a large and complex society. We then explore different proposed solutions to the core challenge. Finally, we examine the moral duties of democratic citizens in large-scale democracies in light of the core challenge.

A vexing problem of democratic theory has been to determine whether ordinary citizens are up to the task of governing a large and complex society. There are three distinct problems here:

• Plato argued that some people are more intelligent and informed about political matters than others and have a superior moral character, and that those persons ought to rule ( The Republic , Book VI)
• Others have argued that a society must have a division of labor. If everyone were engaged in the complex and difficult task of politics, little time or energy would be left for the other essential tasks of a society. Conversely, if we expect most people to engage in other difficult and complex tasks, how can we expect them to have the time and resources sufficient to devote themselves intelligently to politics?
• Since individuals have so little impact on the outcomes of political decision making in large societies, they have little sense of responsibility for the outcomes. Some have argued that it is not rational to vote since the chances that an individual’s vote will a decide the outcome of an election (i.e., will determine whether a candidate gets elected or not) are nearly indistinguishable from zero. For example, one widely accepted estimate puts the odds of an individual casting the deciding vote in a United States presidential election at 1 in 100 million. Many estimates put the odds much lower. Worse still, Anthony Downs has argued that almost all of those who do vote have little reason to become informed about how best to vote (Downs 1957: ch.13). On the assumption that citizens reason and behave roughly according to the Downsian model, either the society must in fact be run by a relatively small group of people with minimal input from the rest or it will be very poorly run. As we can see these criticisms are echoes of the sorts of criticisms Plato and Hobbes made.

These observations pose challenges for any robustly egalitarian or deliberative conception of democracy. Without the ability to participate intelligently in politics one cannot use one’s votes to advance one’s aims nor can one be said to participate in a process of reasoned deliberation among equals. So, either equality of political power implies a kind of self-defeating equal participation of citizens in politics or a reasonable division of labor seems to undermine equality of power. And either substantial participation of citizens in public deliberation entails the relative neglect of other tasks or the proper functioning of the other sectors of the society requires that most people do not participate intelligently in public deliberation.

4.2 Proposed Solutions to the Problem of Democratic Participation

Some modern theorists of democracy, called elite theorists, have argued against any robustly egalitarian or deliberative forms of democracy in light of the problem of democratic participation. They argue that high levels of citizen participation tend to produce bad legislation designed by demagogues to appeal to poorly informed and overly emotional citizens. They look upon the alleged uninformedness of citizens evidenced in many empirical studies in the 1950s and 1960s as perfectly reasonable and predictable. Indeed they regard the alleged apathy of citizens in modern states as highly desirable social phenomena.

Political leaders are to avoid divisive and emotionally charged issues and make policy and law with little regard for the fickle and diffuse demands made by ordinary citizens. Citizens participate by voting but since they know very little they are not effectively the ruling part of the society. The process of election is usually just a fairly peaceful way of maintaining or changing those who rule (Schumpeter 1942 [1950: 269]).

On Schumpeter’s view, however, citizens do have a role to play in avoiding serious disasters. When politicians act in ways that nearly anyone can see is problematic, the citizens can throw the bums out.

So the elite theory of democracy does seem compatible with some of the instrumentalist arguments given above but it is strongly opposed to the intrinsic arguments from liberty, public justification and equality. To be sure, there can be an elite deliberative democracy wherein elites deliberate, perhaps even out of sight of the population at large, on how to run the society.

A view akin to the elite theory but less pessimistic about citizens’ political agency and competence argues that a well-functioning representative democracy can function as a kind of “defensible epistocracy” (Landa & Pevnick 2020). This view holds that, under the right conditions, elected officials can be expected to exercise political power more responsibly than citizens in a direct democracy because each official is far more likely to cast the deciding vote in legislative assemblies (the “pivotality effect”) and officials have more incentive to exercise power with due regard for the general welfare (the “accountability effect”). Moreover, under the right conditions, representative democracy allows individuals to assess the competence of candidates for office and to select candidates who are best able to help the community pursue its commitments.

One approach that is in part motivated by the problem of democratic citizenship but which attempts to preserve some elements of equality against the elitist criticism is the interest group pluralist account of politics. Robert Dahl’s early statement of the view is very powerful.

In a rough sense, the essence of all competitive politics is bribery of the electorate by politicians… The farmer… supports a candidate committed to high price supports, the businessman…supports an advocate of low corporation taxes… the consumer…votes for candidates opposed to a sales tax. (Dahl 1959: 69)

In this conception of the democratic process, each citizen is a member of an interest group with narrowly defined interests that are closely connected to their everyday lives. On these subjects citizens are supposed to be quite well informed and interested in having an influence. Or at least, elites from each of the interest groups that are relatively close in perspective to the ordinary members are the principal agents in the process. On this account, democracy is not rule by the majority but rather rule by coalitions of minorities. Policy and law in a democratic society are decided by means of bargaining among the different groups.

This approach is conceivably compatible with the more egalitarian approach to democracy. This is because it attempts to reconcile equality with collective decision making by limiting the tasks of citizens to ones which they are able to perform reasonably well. It is not particularly compatible with the deliberative public justification approach because it takes the democratic process to be concerned essentially with bargaining among the different interest groups where the preferences are not subject to further debate in the society as a whole.

A third approach inspired by the problem of participation may be called the neo-liberal approach to politics favored by public choice theorists such as James Buchanan & Gordon Tullock (1962). Against elite theories, they contend that elites and their allies will tend to expand the powers of government and bureaucracy for their own interests and that this expansion will occur at the expense of a largely inattentive public. For this reason, they argue for severe restrictions on the powers of elites. They argue against the interest group pluralist theorists that the problem of participation occurs within interest groups more or less as much as among the citizenry at large. Only powerful economic interests are likely to succeed in organizing to influence the government and they will do so largely for their own benefit. Since economic elites will advance their own interests in politics while spreading the costs to others, policies will tend to be more costly (because imposed on everyone in society) than they are beneficial (because they benefit only the elites in the interest group.)

Neo-liberals infer that one ought to transfer many of the current functions of the state to the market and limit the state to the enforcement of basic property rights and liberties. These can be more easily understood and brought under the control of ordinary citizens.

But the neo-liberal account of democracy must answer to two large worries. First, citizens in modern societies have more ambitious conceptions of social justice and the common good than are realizable by the minimal state. The neo-liberal account thus implies a very serious curtailment of democracy of its own. More evidence is needed to support the contention that these aspirations cannot be achieved by the modern state. Second, the neo-liberal approach ignores the problem of large private concentrations of wealth and power that are capable of pushing small states around for their own benefit and imposing their wills on populations without their consent.

Somin (2013) also argues that government be significantly reduced in size so that citizens have a lesser knowledge burden to carry. But he calls for government decentralization so that citizens can vote with their feet in favor of or against competing units of government, in effect creating a kind of market in governments among which citizens can choose.

4.2.4 The self-interest assumption

A considerable amount of the literature in political science and the economic theory of the state are grounded in the assumption that individuals act primarily and perhaps even exclusively in their self-interest narrowly construed. The problem of participation and the accounts of the democratic process described above are in large part dependent on this assumption. When the preferences of voters are not assumed to be self-interested the calculations of the value of participation change. For example, if a person is a motivated utilitarian, the small chance of making a difference is coupled with a huge accumulated return to many people if there is a significant difference between alternatives. It may be worth it in this case to become reasonably well informed (Parfit 1984: 74). Even more weakly altruistic moral preferences could make a big difference to the rationality of becoming informed, for example if one had a preference to comply with perceived civic duty to vote responsibly (see section 4.3.1 for discussion of the duty to vote). Any moral preference can be formulated in consistent utility functions.

Moreover, defenders of deliberative democracy often claim that concerns for the common good and justice are not merely given prior to politics but that they can evolve and improve through the process of discussion and debate in politics (Elster 1986 [2003]; Gutmann & Thompson 2004; Cohen 1989 [2009]). They assert that much debate and discussion in politics would not be intelligible were it not for the fact that citizens are willing to engage in open minded discussion with those who have distinct morally informed points of view. Empirical evidence suggests that individuals are motivated by moral considerations in politics in addition to their interests (Mansbridge 1990).

Public deliberation in any large-scale democracy will occur within a complex and differentiated “deliberative system”, a

wide variety of institutions, associations, and sites of contestation accomplish political work. (Mansbridge et. al. 2012)

Moreover, the deliberative system of a complex democracy will be characterized by a division of democratic labor , with different parts of the system making different contributions to the overall system. The question arises: what is the appropriate role for a citizen in this division of labor? Philosophically, we should ask two questions. What ought citizens have knowledge about in order to fulfill their role? What standards ought citizens’ beliefs live up to in order to be adequately supported? One promising view is that citizens must think about what ends the society ought to aim at and leave the question of how to achieve those aims to experts (Christiano 1996: ch 5). The rationale for this division of labor is that expertise is not as fundamental to the choice of aims as it is to the development of legislation and policy. Citizens are capable in their everyday lives of understanding and cultivating deep understandings of values and of their interests. And if citizens genuinely do choose the aims and others faithfully pursue the means to achieving those aims, then citizens are in the driver’s seat in society and they can play this role as equals.

To be sure, citizens need to know who to vote for and whether those they vote for are genuinely advancing their aims. This would appear to require some basic knowledge of about how best to achieve their political aims. How is this possible without extensive knowledge? In addition, there is empirical evidence that those who are better informed have more influence on representatives (Erikson 2015). So, if this task requires some kind of knowledge to do well, how can this be compatible with equality?

One promising response is that ordinary citizens do not need individually to have a lot of knowledge of social science and particular facts in order to make political decisions based on such knowledge. Recent research in cognitive science indicates the individuals use “cognitive shortcuts” to save on time in acquiring information about the world they live in (Lupia & McCubbins 1998). This use of shortcuts is common and essential throughout economic and political life. In political life, we see part of the rationale for the many intermediate institutions between government and citizens (Downs 1957: 221–229). Citizens save time by making use of institutions such as the press, unions and other interest group associations, political parties, and opinion leaders to get information about politics. They also rely on interactions in the workplace as well as conversations with friends and families. Political parties can connect ordinary citizens in various ways to expertise because each one contains a division of labor within them that mirrors that in the state. Experts in parties have incentives to make their expertise intelligible to other members (Christiano 2012). In addition, under favorable conditions, political parties stimulate the development of citizens’ normative perspectives and facilitate a healthy public competition of political justifications based on those perspectives (White & Ypi 2016).

People are dependent on social networks in other ways in a democracy. People receive “free” information (which they do not deliberately seek out) about politics and law in school, through their jobs, in discussion with friends, colleagues and family and incidentally through the media. And this can form a better or worse basis on which to pursue other information. Institutions can make a difference to the stream of free information individuals receive. Education can be distributed in a more or less egalitarian way. The circumstances of work can provide more or less free information about politics and law. People who have jobs with a significant amount of power such as lawyers, business persons, government officials will be beneficiaries of very high quality free information. They need to know about law and politics to do their jobs properly. Those who hold low skilled and non-unionized jobs will receive much less free information about politics at work. To the extent that we can alter the economic division of labor by for example giving more place to unions or having greater worker participation, we might be able to reduce inequalities of information among citizens.

It has been argued that some of the core problems of electoral representative democracy can be solved by embracing the appointment of political officials by random selection, or sortition . Athenian democracy involved direct democracy for the making of laws and sortition for the choice of officials. Sortition is arguably consistent with the definition of democracy offered in section 1 because, in virtue of the fact that citizens have an equal chance of being selected, sortition is characterized by equality at a crucial stage of the decision-making process. Alex Guerrero (2014) argues that sortition can avoid the related problems of political ignorance, lack of representative accountability, and capture of the political process by elites. The problems are solved because the appointment of public officials does not depend on the input of ordinary citizens who are likely to be ignorant about political matters, nor does it leave space for the wealthy and powerful to influence official decision-making through funding electoral campaigns. One objection is that sortition ignores citizens’ interests in being part of the process of collective self-governance and rather than merely having an equal chance to be part of this process (Lafont 2019). Another objection is that the process of sortition does not allow for choosing representatives and political parties that have put together a conception of how all the interests in society are to fit together in a just and reasonable whole.

4.3 The Moral Duties of Democratic Citizens

What are the moral duties of democratic citizens in complex democracies? In this section, we discuss three important democratic duties: (1) the duty to vote, (2) the duty to promote justice through principled disobedience of the law, and (3) duties to accommodate disagreement through compromise and consensus.

It is often thought that democratic citizens have a moral duty to vote in elections. But this is not obvious. Individual votes are a causally insignificant contribution to the democratic process. In large-scale democracies, the chance that any particular citizen’s vote will decide the outcome of an election is minuscule. What moral reason do democratic citizens have to participate in politics even though they’re almost certain not to make the difference to who gets elected? Why shouldn’t they seek to promote the good or justice in other ways?

Parfit develops an act-utilitarian answer to this question (Parfit 1984: 73–75). Act-utilitarians hold that morally right actions maximize the total expected sum of the utilities of all persons in the society. Parfit argues that voting might nonetheless maximize expected utility if one candidate is significantly superior to the other(s). If we add the benefits to each member of the society of having the superior candidate win, we get a very large difference in value. So when we multiply that value by the probability of casting the deciding vote, which is often thought to be about 1/100,000,000 in a United States presidential election, we might still get a reasonably high expected value. When we subtract the cost to the voter and others of voting, which is often quite low, from this number, we may still have a good reason to vote.

One worry with Parfit’s view is that it faces a version of what Jason Brennan calls “the particularity problem” (Brennan 2011). This is the problem of explaining why citizens ought to promote value through political participation as opposed to through non-political acts. Voting is just one way of promoting overall utility; we need to know the expected utility of the different acts they might perform instead. Even if the argument above is correct, it might be the case that many individuals maximize expected utility by not voting and doing something even more beneficial with their time.

Alex Guerrero argues that citizens have moral reasons to vote because candidates who win by a larger proportion of votes can claim a greater “normative mandate” to govern (Guerrero 2010). Still each individual vote makes only a tiny contribution to the proportion of votes a candidate receives. So, we might doubt the strength of the reason to vote that Guerrero identifies.

Some theorists argue that individuals have a moral duty to vote in order to absolve themselves of complicity in state injustices (Beerbohm 2012; Zakaras 2018). All states commit injustices—they make and enforce unjust laws, wage unjust wars, and much else. And citizens of large-scale democracies have a kind of standing responsibility, by paying taxes and obeying laws, for their state’s injustices of which they must actively absolve themselves The complicity account argues that citizens avoid shared responsibility for their state’s injustices if they oppose those injustices through voting and of public advocacy (Beerbohm 2012).

One worry is that it is unclear why voting and publicly advocating against injustice should be thought to absolve responsibility that is established by paying taxes and obeying laws. Another worry is that one’s concern to oppose injustice should derive from a more direct concern for the wrongs suffered by victims of injustice rather than a concern with keeping one’s hands clean.

One sort of account that avoids this worry grounds the moral duty to vote in the importance of doing one’s fair share of the demands of political justice consistent with public equality. The demands of creating and sustaining just institutions distribute fairly among all citizens (Maskivker 2019). If one fails to do one’s fair share of these demands, then one fails to show due regard for the eventual victims of injustice. Furthermore, voting provides citizens with a mechanism for doing their fair shares of the demands of making their institutions just in a way that is consistent with respecting the public equality of fellow citizens. By showing up and casting a vote, citizens can contribute to the collective achievement of justice while maintaining equal decision-making power with fellow citizens.

Civil disobedience has long been recognized as a central mechanism through which democratic citizens may legitimately promote political justice in their society. According to the standard view, civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law that aims to change laws or government policies. People who engage in civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions in order to show fidelity to the law (Bedau 1961; Rawls 1971: ch. 55). The standard definition of civil disobedience has been subjected to challenge. For example, some argue that the private acts in which the disobedient seeks to evade legal consequences can count as instances of civil disobedience (Raz 1979; Brownlee 2004, 2007, 2012).

Perhaps the most common way of justifying civil disobedience argues that the same considerations that ground the pro tanto duty to obey the law sometimes make it appropriate to engage in civil disobedience of the law (see, e.g., Rawls 1971: ch. 57; Sabl 2001; Markovits 2005; Smith 2011). For example, Rawls argues that while citizens of a “nearly just” society have a pro tanto duty to obey its laws in virtue of it being nearly just, civil disobedience can be justified as a way of making the relevant society more just (Rawls 1971: ch. 57). Similarly, Daniel Markovits argues that members of a society with suitably egalitarian and inclusive democratic procedures have a general duty to obey its laws because they are produced by procedures that are suitably egalitarian and inclusive, but that civil disobedience can be justified as a way of making the relevant procedures more egalitarian or inclusive (Markovits 2005).

It is easy to see why this constitutes an attractive way of justifying civil disobedience, since it justifies it by appeal to the same values that ground the pro tanto duty to obey the law. On the other hand, as Simmons notes, if there is no general duty to obey the law, there would seem to be no presumption in favor of obedience and thus no special need for a justification of civil disobedience; obedience and disobedience would stand equally in need of justification (Simmons 2007: ch 4).

Advocates of the standard approach generally assume that only civil disobedience can be justified in this way. However, some argue civil disobedience does not enjoy a special normative presumption over uncivil disobedience. The core idea that insofar as the values that ground a pro tanto duty to obey the law—for example, justice or democratic equality—are sometimes best served by civil disobedience of the law, they are sometimes best served by covert, evasive, anonymous, or even violent disobedience of the law (Delmas 2018; Lai 2019; Pasternak 2018).

Disagreement about what laws, policies, or principles ought to be implemented is a persistent feature of democratic societies. It is often argued that citizens and officials have duties to moderate their political activity in order to accommodate the competing views of fellow citizens or officials. Two duties of accommodation are widely discussed in the literature: duties of compromise and duties of public justification.

A compromise can be understood as an agreement between parties to advance laws or policies that all regard as suboptimal because they disagree about which laws or policies are optimal (May 2005). While it is widely accepted that there are sometimes compelling instrumental reasons to compromise, whether there are intrinsic moral reasons to compromise is more controversial. Some defend intrinsic reasons to compromise based on democratic values like inclusion, mutual respect, and reciprocity (Gutmann and Thompson 2014; Wendt 2016; Weinstock 2013). However, Simon May argues that such arguments fail and that all reasons to compromise are pragmatic (May 2005).

Advocates of the public justification approach to democracy (see section 2.2.2 ) often argue that democratic citizens and officials have individual moral duties of public justification. John Rawls argues for a “duty of civility” that requires citizens and officials to be prepared to give mutually acceptable justifications for important laws when voting and engaged in public advocacy. Given the inevitability of disagreement about comprehensive moral and philosophical truth in free democracies, the duty of civility requires citizens to appeal to a reasonable “political” conception of justice that can be the object of an “overlapping consensus” between different comprehensive doctrines. While different theorists motivate duties of public justification in different ways, many appeal to the need for exercises of coercive political authority to respect citizens’ freedom and equality.

5. Democratic Representation

Representation is an essential part of the division of labor of large-scale democracies. In this section, we examine two moral questions concerning representation. First, what sort of representative system is best? Second, by what moral principles are representatives bound?

A number of debates have centered on the question of what kinds of representative systems are best for a democratic society. What choice we make here will depend heavily on our underlying moral justification of democracy, our conception of citizenship as well as on our empirical understanding of political institutions and how they function. The most basic types of formal political representation available are single member district representation, proportional representation and group representation. In addition, many societies have opted for multicameral legislative institutions. In some cases, combinations of the above forms have been tried.

Single member district representation returns single representatives of geographically defined areas containing roughly equal populations to the legislature and is prominent in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, among other places. The most common form of proportional representation is party list proportional representation. In a simple form of such a scheme, a number of parties compete for election to a legislature that is not divided into geographical districts. Parties acquire seats in the legislature as a proportion of the total number of votes they receive in the voting population as a whole. Group representation occurs when the society is divided into non-geographically defined groups such as ethnic or linguistic groups or even functional groups such as workers, farmers and capitalists and returns representatives to a legislature from each of them.

Many have argued in favor of single member district legislation on the grounds that it has appeared to them to lead to more stable government than other forms of representation. The thought is that proportional representation tends to fragment the citizenry into opposing homogeneous camps that rigidly adhere to their party lines and that are continually vying for control over the government. Since there are many parties and they are unwilling to compromise with each other, governments formed from coalitions of parties tend to fall apart rather quickly. The post war experience of governments in Italy appears to confirm this hypothesis. Single member district representation, in contrast, is said to enhance the stability of governments by virtue of its favoring a two party system of government. Each election cycle then determines which party is to stay in power for some length of time.

Charles Beitz argues that single member district representation encourages moderation in party programs offered for citizens to consider (Beitz 1989: ch. 7). This results from the tendency of this kind of representation towards two party systems. In a two party system with majority rule, it is argued, each party must appeal to the median voter in the political spectrum. Hence, they must moderate their programs to appeal to the median voter. Furthermore, they encourage compromise among groups since they must try to appeal to a lot of other groups in order to become part of one of the two leading parties. These tendencies encourage moderation and compromise in citizens to the extent that political parties, and interest groups, hold these qualities up as necessary to functioning well in a democracy.

In criticism, advocates of proportional and group representation have argued that single member district representation tends to muffle the voices and ignore the interests of minority groups in the society (Mill 1861; Christiano 1996). Minority interests and views tend to be articulated in background negotiations and in ways that muffle their distinctiveness. Furthermore, representatives of minority interests and views often have a difficult time getting elected at all in single member district systems so it has been charged that minority views and interests are often systematically underrepresented. Sometimes these problems are dealt with by redrawing the boundaries of districts in a way that ensures greater minority representation. The efforts are invariably quite controversial since there is considerable disagreement about the criteria for apportionment.

In proportional representation, by contrast, representatives of different groups are seated in the legislature in proportion to citizens’ choices. Minorities need not make their demands conform to the basic dichotomy of views and interests that characterize single member district systems so their views are more articulated and distinctive as well as better represented.

Advocates of group representation, like Iris Marion Young, have argued that some historically disenfranchised groups may still not do very well under proportional representation (Young 1990: ch. 6). They may not be able to organize and articulate their views as easily as other groups. Also, minority groups can still be systematically defeated in the legislature and their interests may be consistently set back even if they do have some representation. For these groups, some have argued that the only way to protect their interests is legally to ensure that they have adequate and even disproportionate representation.

One worry about group representation is that it tends to freeze some aspects of the agenda that might be better left to the choice of citizens. For instance, consider a population that is divided into linguistic groups for a long time. And suppose that only some citizens continue to think of linguistic conflict as important. In the circumstances a group representation scheme may tend to be biased in an arbitrary way that favors the views or interests of those who do think of linguistic conflict as important.

What moral norms apply to representatives carrying out their official duties? We can get a better handle on possible answers by introducing Hannah Pitkin’s famous distinction between trustees and delegates (Pitkin 1967). Representatives who act as trustees rely on their own independent judgments in carrying out their duties. Norms of trusteeship are supported in recognition that, given a natural division of democratic labor, officials are in a much better position to make well-reasoned and well-informed political decisions than ordinary citizens.

Representatives who act as delegates defer to the judgments of their citizens. These norms might be thought to reflect the value of democratic accountability. Because the people authorize representatives to govern, it is natural to think that representatives are accountable to the people to enact their judgments. If representatives are not accountable in this way, citizens lose democratic control over their representatives’ actions.

Which norms should win out when they conflict? Pitkin argues that the answer varies by context. This seems plausible. For example, if we take the view that citizens primarily have the role of determining the aims of the society, we might think that representatives ought to be delegates with regard to the aims, but trustees with regard to the ways of realizing the aims (Christiano 1996). See Suzanne Dovi’s discussion of representation for a deeper and more nuanced discussion of these issues.

Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem is thought by some to provide a major set of difficulties for democratic theory (Arrow 1951). William Riker, Russell Hardin, and others have thought that the impossibility theorem shows that there are deep problems with democratic ideals (Riker 1982; Hardin 1999). Neither of these thinkers are opposed to democracy itself, they both think that there are good instrumental reasons for having democracy.

The basic results of social choice theory are laid out in detail elsewhere in the encyclopedia (List 2013). Here we will simply articulate the basic result and an illustration. The question of Arrowian social choice theory is: how do we determine a social preference for a society overall on the basis of the set of the individual preferences of the members? Arrow shows that a social choice function that satisfies a number of plausible constraints cannot be defined when there are three or more alternatives to be chosen by the group. He lays out a number of conditions to be imposed on a social choice function. Unlimited domain : The social choice function must be able to give us a social preference no matter what the preferences of the individuals over alternatives are. Non dictatorship : the social choice function must not select the preference of one particular member regardless of others’ preferences. Transitivity and completeness : The individual preferences orderings must be transitive and complete orderings and the social preference derived from them must be transitive and complete. Independence of irrelevant alternatives : the social preference between two alternatives must be the result only of the individual orderings between those two alternatives. Pareto condition : if all the members prefer an alternative x over y , then x must be ranked above y in the social preference. The theorem says that no social choice function over more than two alternatives can satisfy all of these conditions.

A useful illustration of this idea involves an extension of majority rule to cases of more than two alternatives. The Condorcet rule says that an alternative x wins when, for every other alternative, a majority prefers x over that alternative. For example, suppose we have three persons A , B and C and three alternatives x , y and z . A prefers x over y , y over z ; B prefers y over z and z over x ; C prefers x over z and z over y . In this case, x is the Condorcet winner since it beats y , and it beats z . The problem with this plausible sounding rule is the case of a majority cycle. Suppose you have three persons A , B and C , and three alternatives, x , y and z . In the case in which A prefers x over y and y over z , while B prefers y over z and z over x , and C prefers z over x and x over y , the Condorcet rule will yield a social preference of x over y , y over z and z over x . One can see here that the Condorcet rule satisfies all the conditions except transitivity of social preference. One way to avoid intransitivity is to restrict the domain of preferences from which the social preference arises. Another is to introduce cardinal information that compares the how much people prefer alternatives (violating independence). Another might be to make one person a dictator. So, this case nicely illustrates that one cannot satisfy all of the constraints simultaneously.

Riker argues that the theorem shows that the idea that the popular will can be the governing element in a society is false. If an existence condition for a popular will is a restricted set of preferences the question naturally arises as to whether such a condition is always or normally met in a moderately complex society. We might wonder whether a highly pluralistic society with a very complex division of labor is likely to satisfy the restricted preference set condition necessary to avoid cycles or other pathologies of social choice. Some have argued that we have empirical evidence to the effect that modern societies do normally satisfy such conditions (Mackie 2003). Others have argued that this seems unlikely (Riker 1982; Ingham 2019). This is not merely a defense of unlimited domain. It is a defense of the thesis that normally the collections of preferences in modern societies are not likely to have the properties that enable them to avoid cycles.

The fairness critique from social choice theory is based on the idea that when a voting process meets requirements of fairness, the fairness of the process and the preferences may not generate determinate outcomes. If cycles are pervasive, the outcomes of democratic processes may be determined by clever strategies and not by the fairness of the procedures (Riker 1982). Three remarks are in order here. First, it is compatible with the process being completely fair that the outcomes of the process are indeterminate. After all, coin flips are fair. Second, there is some question as to how prominent the cycles are. Third, one might think that if the conditions which enable opposing sides to strategize effectively are themselves roughly equal, then the concerns for fairness are fully met. If resources for persuasion and organization are distributed in an egalitarian way, perhaps the fairness account is vindicated after all. This point can be made more compelling when we consider Sean Ingham’s account of political equality. He includes intensity of preference in his account of fairness. This is a departure from the Arrowian approach, but it is in many ways a realistic one. The idea is that majorities have equal control over policy areas when they are able to get what they want with the same amount of intensity of preferences. And equality holds generally when all groups of the same size have the same control (Ingham 2019). There remains an extreme case in which all majorities have equal intensity of preference and are caught in a majority cycle. But the chances of this happening are very slim, even if the chances of majority cycles more generally are not as small. Even if there are a lot of majority cycles, if the issues are resolved in such a way that those majorities that have most at stake in the conflict are the ones that get their way, then we can have fairness in a quite robust sense even while having pervasive majority cycles.

If democratic societies allow members to participate as equals in collective decision making, a natural question arises: who has the right to participate in making collective decisions? We can ask this question within a particular jurisdiction (ought all adults have the right to participation? Ought children have the right to participation? Ought all residents have such rights?). But we can also ask what the extent of the jurisdiction ought to be. How many of the people in the world ought to be included in the collective decision-making? An easy, though slightly misleading, way of asking this question is, what ought the physical boundaries of a particular institution of collective decision-making be? We see partially democratic societies within the confines of the modern nation-state. But we might ask, why should we restrict the set of persons who participate in making decisions of the modern state just to those who happen to be the physical inhabitants of those states? Surely there are many other persons affected by decisions made by democratic states aside from those persons. For example, activities in one society A can pollute another society B . Why shouldn’t the members of B have a say in the decisions regarding the polluting activities in A ? And there can be many other effects that activities in A can have on B .

Some have suggested that the boundaries of a state ought to be determined through a principle of national self-determination. We identify a nation as an ongoing group of persons who share certain cultural, historical and political norms and who identify with each other and with a piece of land. Then we determine the boundaries of the territory by appeal to the size of the group of people and the land they cherish (Miller 1995; Song 2012). This is an appealing idea in many ways: shared nationality breeds a willingness to share the sacrifices that arise from collective decision making; it generates a sense of at-homeness for people. But it is hard to use as a general principle for dividing land among persons when one of the central facts for many societies is that a diversity of nations, ethnic groups and cultures co-mingle on the very same land.

Is there a democratic solution to the boundary problem? A number of ideas have been suggested. The first idea is that the people ought to decide what the boundaries are. But this suggestion, while it may be a pragmatic resolution to the problem, seems to beg the question about who the members are and who are not (Whelan 1983).

A second theoretical solution that has some democratic credentials is to invoke the principle that all who are subjected to decision making, in the sense of who are coerced or have duties imposed upon them, ought to have a say in the decision making (Abizadeh 2008). This principle is plausible enough, but it doesn’t get at enough cases. The pollution case above is not a case of subjection.

A third proposed theoretical solution is the all-affected principle. One formulation is “all affected persons ought to have a say in the decisions that affect them”. This does suggest that when the activities in one state affect those of another state, the people of the other state ought to have a say in those activities. Some have thought that this principle tends to lead to a kind of politically cosmopolitan principle in support of world government (Goodin 2007).

But the all-affected principle is conceptually quite uncertain and morally deeply problematic, and it provides very little, if anything, in the way of a solution to the boundary problem.

First, “having a say” is not clear. Does it require having a vote in collective decision-making? Or is it also satisfied by a person’s being able to modify another’s action by negotiating with them, as we see when there is bargaining over an externality? This latter version would undermine the idea that the all-affected principle has direct implications for the boundary problem. When the United States permits activities that produce acid rain in Canada, Canada can negotiate with the United States to lessen the production of acid rain and/or to compensate Canada for the harm. As long as there is a fair and effective system of negotiation, this would seem to satisfy the all-affected principle without giving Canadians a vote in American politics or Americans a vote in Canadian politics.

Second, it is not clear what “being affected” means. One, does a person being affected just mean that there is a change in the person’s situation or must the effect involve the setting back of one’s preferences, or interests, or legitimate interests, or exercise of one’s capacities or one’s good? Two, are one’s interests affected by a decision only when they are advanced or set back relative to some baseline (either the present state of affairs or some morally defined baseline like what you have promised me), or am I affected by decisions that could be to my advantage or disadvantage but end up making no difference? For example, if I am drowning in a pool and you are deciding whether to save me or go buy yourself a candy bar, am I affected by your buying the candy bar? If I am not affected when no change occurs, then who is affected by a decision often depends on who participates in the decision and we have no solution to the problem of inclusion. If I am affected, then the principle has some quite extraordinary implications. Now it turns out that impoverished persons in South Asia are affected by my buying a candy bar, since I could have sent the money to them (Goodin 2007).

The all-affected principle is a merely suggestive and rhetorically effective phrase. It is a conversation starter and a list of topics to be discussed, not a genuine principle. For example, if I must include everyone possibly affected by my decision for every decision I make, I will not be able to make many decisions and my decision making will no longer enable me to give a shape to my own life and my relations with others. My life becomes fragmented and lacks integrity (Williams 1973). An analog of this problem would arise for political societies, presumably. Each society would have to include a variety of different persons in each decision. It is hard to see how any society could take on any particular character if this is the case.

A more plausible principle that encompasses some of the suggestions of the all-affected principle is that a framework of institutions should be set up so that people have power to advance and protect their legitimate interests in life.

But if we understand the principle in this way, it is not clear that it helps us much with the boundary problem. First of all, there are different ways in which people can be said to possess power over their lives. One kind of power is the power to participate as an equal in a collective decision-making process. Another kind is to be able to advance one’s interests in a decentralized process like a market or a system of agreement making like international law. Recalling our pollution problem above, we could give the state of which they are members power to negotiate with the polluting state terms that are mutually agreeable. Only the power to participate as an equal in collective decision-making involves the boundaries of collective decision-making.

Another solution to the boundary problem is a conservative one. The basic idea is to keep the boundaries of states roughly as they are except if there is a pressing need to change them. Trying to alter the boundaries of political societies is a recipe for serious conflict because there is no institution that has the legitimacy or power actually to resolve problems at an international level and there is likely to be a lot of disagreement on how to do it. States as we know them, are by far the most powerful political entities in the international system. They have developed more effective practices of accountability of power than any other entity in the system. They have created unified societies with highly interdependent populations. Finally, states and the individuals in them can be made accountable to some degree to other individuals and states through the process of negotiation and international law making. The origin of these boundaries may be arbitrary, but it is not, for all that, irrelevant. To be sure, there are clear cases where borders can be changed. One source of pressing need is serious injustice within a country. Another might be the existence of permanent minorities that are sectionally defined. Here, we ask only how to revise boundaries and the basis of such revision is that it is a remedy for serious injustice (Buchanan 1991).

• Plato’s ethics and politics in The Republic
• Aristotle’s political theory
• Thomas Hobbes’s moral and political philosophy
• John Locke’s political philosophy
• Jean Jacques Rousseau
• Immanuel Kant’s social and political philosophy
• John Stuart Mill’s moral and political philosophy
• Hannah Arendt
• Jürgen Habermas
• Abizadeh, Arash, 2008, “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders”, Political Theory , 36(1): 37–65. doi:10.1177/0090591707310090
• Acemoglu, Daron, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson, 2019, “Democracy Does Cause Growth”, Journal of Political Economy , 127(1): 47–100. doi:10.1086/700936
• Achen, Christopher H. and Larry M. Bartels, 2016, Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Studies in Political Behavior), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Altman, Andrew and Christopher Heath Wellman, 2009, A Liberal Theory of International Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564415.001.0001
• Anderson, Elizabeth, 2006, “The Epistemology of Democracy”, Episteme , 3(1–2): 8–22. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8
• Aristotle, Politics: Writings from the Complete Works , Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.
• Arneson, Richard J., 1993 [2003], “Democratic Rights at National and Workplace Levels”, in The Idea of Democracy , David Copp, Jean Hampton, and John Roember, 118–138, 143–147; reprinted as “Democracy at the National Level” in Christiano 2003: 95–115.
• –––, 2003, “Defending the Purely Instrumental Account of Democratic Legitimacy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 11(1): 122–132. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00170
• –––, 2004, “Democracy Is Not Intrinsically Just”, in Justice and Democracy , Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, and Carole Pateman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–58. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490217.003
• –––, 2009, “The Supposed Right to a Democratic Say”, in Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy , Thomas Christiano and John Christman (eds.), Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 195–212. doi:10.1002/9781444310399.ch11
• Arrow, Kenneth J., 1951, Social Choice and Individual Values , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Austen-Smith, David, 1992, “Strategic Models of Talk in Political Decision Making”, International Political Science Review , 13(1): 45–58. doi:10.1177/019251219201300104
• Austen-Smith, David and Jeffrey S. Banks, 1996, “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem”, American Political Science Review , 90(1): 34–45. doi:10.2307/2082796
• Bajaj, Sameer, 2014, “Review of Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , by Hélène Landemore”, Ethics , 124(2): 426–431. doi:10.1086/673507
• Barry, Brian, 1965, Political Argument , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Bartels, Larry M., 2002, “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions”, Political Behavior , 24(2): 117–150. doi:10.1023/A:1021226224601
• Bedau, Hugo A., 1961, “On Civil Disobedience”, Journal of Philosophy , 58(21): 653–665. doi:10.2307/2023542
• Beerbohm, Eric Anthony, 2012, In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Beitz, Charles R., 1989, Political Equality: An Essay on Democratic Theory , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Black, Duncan, 1963, The Theory of Committees and Elections , second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brennan, Jason, 2011, The Ethics of Voting , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2014, “How Smart Is Democracy? You Can’t Answer That Question a Priori”, Critical Review , 26(1–2): 33–58. doi:10.1080/08913811.2014.907040
• –––, 2016, Against Democracy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Brownlee, Kimberley, 2004, “Features of a Paradigm Case of Civil Disobedience”, Res Publica , 10(4): 337–351. doi:10.1007/s11158-004-2326-6
• –––, 2007, “The Communicative Aspects of Civil Disobedience and Lawful Punishment”, Criminal Law and Philosophy , 1(2): 179–192. doi:10.1007/s11572-006-9015-9
• –––, 2012, Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592944.001.0001
• Buchanan, Allen, 1991, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania to Quebec , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Buchanan, James and Gordon Tullock, 1962, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy , Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Caplan, Bryan, 2007, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cassese, Antonio, 1995, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Christiano, Thomas, 1996, The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• ––– (ed.), 2003, Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2004, “The Authority of Democracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 12(3): 266–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00200.x
• –––, 2006, “A Democratic Theory of Territory and Some Puzzles about Global Democracy”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 37(1): 81–107. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2006.00304.x
• –––, 2008, The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and Its Limits , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198297475.001.0001
• –––, 2009, “Must Democracy Be Reasonable?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 39(1): 1–34. doi:10.1353/cjp.0.0037
• –––, 2011, “An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy: An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 39(2): 142–176. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01204.x
• –––, 2012, “Rational Deliberation among Experts and Citizens”, in Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012: 27–51. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139178914.003
• –––, 2015, “Self-Determination and the Human Right to Democracy”, in Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 459–480. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0026
• Cohen, Joshua, 1986, “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy”, Ethics , 97(1): 26–38. doi:10.1086/292815
• –––, 1989 [2009], “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”, in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State , Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit (eds.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 17–34; reprinted in Philosophy, Politics, Democracy: Selected Essays , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 16–37.
• –––, 1996 [2003], “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy”, in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political , Seyla Benhabib (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 95–119; reprinted in Christiano 2003: 17–38.
• Coleman, Jules, 1989, “Rationality and the Justification of Democracy,” in Geoffrey Brennan and Loren Lomasky (eds.), Politics and Process: New Essays in Democratic Thought , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 194–220.
• Condorcet, Marquis de, 1785, Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues àla pluralité des voix , Paris; reprinted Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139923972
• Dahl, Robert A., 1959, A Preface to Democratic Theory , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Delmas, Candice, 2018, A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190872199.001.0001
• Dewey, John, 1927 [2012], The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt; reprinted, Melvin L. Rogers (ed.), University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.
• Downs, Anthony, 1957, An Economic Theory of Democracy , New York: Harper and Row.
• Doyle, Michael W., 2011, Liberal Peace: Selected Essays , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203804933
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1996, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2000, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Elster, Jon, 1986 [2003], “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory”, in Foundations of Scoial Choice Theory , Jon Elster and Aanund Hyllund (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103–132; reprinted in Christiano 2003: 138–158.
• Ely, John Hart, 1980, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Erikson, Robert S., 2015, “Income Inequality and Policy Responsiveness”, Annual Review of Political Science , 18: 11–29. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094706
• Estlund, David, 1997a [2003], “Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority”, in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , James Bohman and William Rehg (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 173–204; reprinted in Christiano 2003: 69–91.
• –––, 1997b, “The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority”:, The Modern Schoolman , 74(4): 259–276. doi:10.5840/schoolman199774424
• –––, 2003, “Why Not Epistocracy”, in Desire, Identity, and Existence: Essays in Honor of T.M. Penner , Naomi Reshotko (ed.), Kelowna, BC: Academic Printing and Publishing, 53–69.
• –––, 2006, “Democracy and the Real Speech Situation”, in Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents , Samantha Besson and José Luis Martí (eds.), London: Routledge, 75–92.
• –––, 2008, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Estlund, David M., Jeremy Waldron, Bernard Grofman, and Scott L. Feld, 1989, “Democratic Theory and the Public Interest: Condorcet and Rousseau Revisited”, American Political Science Review , 83(4): 1317–1340. doi:10.2307/1961672
• Farber, Henry S. and Joanne Gowa, 1995, “Polities and Peace”, International Security , 20(2): 123–146. doi:10.2307/2539231
• Forst, Rainer, 2016, “The Justification of Basic Rights: A Discourse-Theoretical Approach”, Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy , 45(3): 7–28. doi:10.5553/NJLP/221307132016045003002
• Gartzke, Erik, 2007, “The Capitalist Peace”, American Journal of Political Science , 51(1): 166–91.
• Gaus, Gerald F., 1996, Justificatory Liberalism: An Essay on Epistemology and Political Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2011, The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511780844
• Goodin, Robert E., 2003, Reflective Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199256179.001.0001
• –––, 2007, “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 35(1): 40–68. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00098.x
• Goodin, Robert E. and Kai Spiekermann, 2019, An Epistemic Theory of Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823452.001.0001
• Gould, Carol C., 1988, Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economics and Society , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Grofman, Bernard and Scott L. Feld, 1988, “Rousseau’s General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective”, American Political Science Review , 82(2): 567–576. doi:10.2307/1957401
• Guerrero, Alexander A., 2010, “The Paradox of Voting and the Ethics of Political Representation”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 38(3): 272–306. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2010.01188.x
• –––, 2014, “Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 42(2): 135–178. doi:10.1111/papa.12029
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2004, Why Deliberative Democracy? , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2014, The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diksurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
• Hannon, Michael, 2020, “Empathetic Understanding and Deliberative Democracy”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 101(3): 591–611. doi:10.1111/phpr.12624
• Hardin, Russell, 1999, Liberalism, Constitutionalism, and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198290845.001.0001
• Hayek, Friedrich A., 1960, The Constitution of Liberty , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Hobbes, Thomas, 1651, Leviathan , London; reprinted, C.B. MacPherson (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968.
• Hong, Lu and Scott E. Page, 2004, “Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 101(46): 16385–16389. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101
• Hume, David, 1748, “Of the Original Contract”; reprinted in Hume’s Ethical Writings: Selections from David Hume , Alasdair MacIntyre (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965.
• Ingham, Sean, 2019, Rule by Multiple Majorities: A New Theory of Popular Control , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108683821
• Kahan, Dan M., 2013, “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(4): 407–424
• Kant, Immanuel, 1795, Zum ewigen Frieden: Ein philosophischer Entwurf , Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius. Translated as “Toward Perpetual Peace” in Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy , Mary J. Gregor (trans./ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 311–352.
• Knight, Jack and James Johnson, 2011, The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Kolodny, Niko, 2014a, “Rule Over None I: What Justifies Democracy?”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 42(3): 195–229. doi:10.1111/papa.12035
• –––, 2014b, “Rule Over None II: Social Equality and the Justification of Democracy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 42(4): 287–336. doi:10.1111/papa.12037
• Ladha, Krishna K., 1992, “The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech, and Correlated Votes”, American Journal of Political Science , 36(3): 617–634. doi:10.2307/2111584
• Lafont, Christina, 2019, Democracy Without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lai, Ten-Herng., 2019, “Justifying Uncivil Disobedience”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 5 , David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 90–114. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841425.003.0004
• Landa, Dimitri and Ryan Pevnick, 2020, “Representative Democracy as Defensible Epistocracy”, American Political Science Review , 114(1): 1–13. doi:10.1017/S0003055419000509
• Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Layne, Christopher, 1994, “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace”, International Security , 19(2): 5–49. doi:10.2307/2539195
• Levy, Jack S. and William R. Thompson, 2010, Causes of War , Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.
• List, Christian, 2013, “Social Choice Theory”, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/social-choice/ >
• List, Christian and Robert E. Goodin, 2001, “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 9(3): 277–306. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00128
• Locke, John, 1690, Second Treatise on Civil Government , London; reprinted C.B. MacPherson (ed.), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1980.
• Lord, Charles G., Lee Ross, and Mark R. Lepper, 1979, “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37(11): 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
• Lupia Arthur and Matthew D. McCubbins, 1998, The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need To Know? , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mackie, Gerry, 2003, Democracy Defended , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490293
• Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, 1787–1788, The Federalist Papers , New York; reprinted Isaac Kramnick (ed.), Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1987. [ Federalist Papers available online ]
• Mansbridge, Jane J. (ed.), 1990, Beyond Self-Interest , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis F. Thompson, and Mark E. Warren, 2012, “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy”, in Parkinson and Mansbridge2003: 1–26. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139178914.002
• Markovits, Daniel, 2005, “Democratic Disobedience”, Yale Law Journal , 114(8): 1897–1952.
• Marsilius of Padua, [DP], The Defender of the Peace , Discourse I, Annabelle Brett (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• Maskivker, Julia, 2019, The Duty to Vote , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190066062.001.0001
• May, Simon Cabulea, 2005, “Principled Compromise and the Abortion Controversy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 33(4): 317–348. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00035.x
• Mill, John Stuart, 1861 [1991], Considerations on Representative Government , London: Parker, Son, and Bourn; reprinted Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991.
• Miller, David, 1995, On Nationality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• Page, Scott E., 2007, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Parfit, Derek, 1984, Reasons and Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019824908X.001.0001
• Parkinson, John and Jane Mansbridge (eds.), 2012, Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139178914
• Pasternak, Avia, 2018, “Political Rioting: A Moral Assessment”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 46(4): 384–418. doi:10.1111/papa.12132
• Peter, Fabienne, 2008, “Pure Epistemic Proceduralism”, Episteme , 5(1): 33–55. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000221
• –––, 2009, Democratic Legitimacy , New York: Routledge.
• Pevnick, Ryan, 2020, “The Failure of Instrumental Arguments for a Human Right to Democracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 28(1): 27–50. doi:10.1111/jopp.12197
• Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, 1967, The Concept of Representation , Berkeley, CA: University of California.
• Plato, The Republic , revised/trans. by Lee, D., Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1974, 2 nd edition.
• Quirk, Paul J., 2014, “Making It up on Volume: Are Larger Groups Really Smarter?”, Critical Review , 26(1–2): 129–150. doi:10.1080/08913811.2014.907046
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2005, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press, expanded edition.
• Rae, Douglas, 1969, “Decision Rules and Individual Values in Constitutional Choice”, American Political Science Review , 63: 40–56. doi:10.2307/1954283
• Ray, James Lee, 1995, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition , Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
• Raz, Joseph, 1979, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Riker, William H., 1982, Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice , San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
• Rosenblum, Nancy L., 2008, On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Rousseau, David L., Christopher Gelpi, Dan Reiter, and Paul K. Huth, 1996, “Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88”, American Political Science Review , 90(3): 512–533. doi:10.2307/2082606
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Du contrat social; ou Principes du droit politique , Amsterdam. Translated as The Social Contract , Charles Frankel (trans.), New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1947.
• Russett, Bruce M., 1993, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post–Cold War World , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Russett, Bruce M. and Harvey Starr, 2003, “From Democratic Peace to Kantian Peace: Democracy and Conflict in the International System”, in Handbook of War Studies II , Manus I. Midlarsky (ed.), Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 93–128.
• Sabl, Andrew, 2001, “Looking Forward to Justice: Rawlsian Civil Disobedience and Its Non-Rawlsian Lessons”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 9(3): 307–330. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00129
• Scheffler, Samuel, 2010, Equality and Tradition: Questions of Value in Moral and Political Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1942 [1950], Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , New York: Harper and Row; second edition 1947; third edition 1950.
• Sen, Amartya, 1999, Development as Freedom , New York: Knopf.
• Simmons, A. John, 2001, Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511625152
• –––, 2007, Political Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Singer, Peter, 1973, Democracy and Disobedience , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Smith, William, 2011, “Civil Disobedience and the Public Sphere”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 19(2): 145–166. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00365.x
• Somin, Ilya, 2013, Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Song, Sarah, 2012, “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should Be Bounded by the State”, International Theory , 4(1): 39–68. doi:10.1017/S1752971911000248
• Stilz, Anna, 2009, Liberal Loyalty: Freedom, Obligation, and the State , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2016, “The Value of Self-Determination”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 2 , David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 8. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759621.003.0005
• Thompson, Abigail, 2014, “Does Diversity Trump Ability?” Notices of the AMS , 61(9): 1024–1030. [ Thompson 2014 available online ]
• Valentini, Laura, 2013, “Justice, Disagreement and Democracy”, British Journal of Political Science , 43(1): 177–199. doi:10.1017/S0007123412000294
• Viehoff, Daniel, 2014, “Democratic Equality and Political Authority”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 42(4): 337–375. doi:10.1111/papa.12036
• Waldron, Jeremy, 1995, “The Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle’s Politics ”, Political Theory , 23(4): 563–584. doi:10.1177/0090591795023004001
• –––, 1999, Law and Disagreement , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Wall, Steven, 2007, “Democracy and Equality”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 57(228): 416–438. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.495.x
• Weart, Spencer R., 1998, Never at War: Why Democracies Will Never Fight One Another , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Wendt, Fabian, 2016, Compromise, Peace and Public Justification: Political Morality Beyond Justice , London: Palgrave Macmillon. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28877-2
• Weinstock, Daniel, 2013, “On the Possibility of Principled Moral Compromise”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 16(4): 537–556. doi:10.1080/13698230.2013.810392
• Whelan, Frederick G., 1983, “Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem”, Nomos 25: Liberal Democracy , J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.), American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, 13–47.
• White, Jonathan and Lea Ypi, 2016, The Meaning of Partisanship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684175.001.0001
• Williams, B., 1973, “A Critique of Utilitarianism”, in Utilitarianism: For and Against , with J.J.C. Smart, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wolff, Robert Paul, 1970, In Defense of Anarchism , New York, NY: Harper and Row.
• Wright, Gavin, 2013, Sharing the Prize: The Economics of the Civil Rights Revolution in the American South , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Young, Iris Marion, 1990, Justice and the Politics of Difference , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Zakaras, Alex, 2018, “Complicity and Coercion: Toward and Ethics of Political Participation”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 4), David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 8.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• [Please contact the author with suggestions]

authority | citizenship | civil disobedience | constitutionalism | egalitarianism | equality | justice | justification, political: public | legitimacy, political | liberty: positive and negative | -->pluralism --> | political obligation | publicity | public reason | representation, political | rights | rule of law and procedural fairness | voting

Acknowledgments

The SEP editors would like to thank Walter Horn for identifying some gaps in the coverage of this entry, leading to a revision in June 2024.

Copyright © 2024 by Tom Christiano < thomasc @ u . arizona . edu > Sameer Bajaj < sameer . bajaj1 @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Mobile Close Open Menu

Why Democracy is the Best We've Got

Mar 12, 2019

Alexandra Mork

International Student Essay Contest Winner

Stay updated on news, events, and more

Join our mailing list

Subscribe to the Carnegie Ethics Newsletter for more on the state of democracy

In response to the question " is it important to live in a democracy ", the following essay was selected as a winner of carnegie council's international student essay content..

Although the ongoing debate over the viability and efficacy of living in a democracy underwent a temporary pause after the conclusion of the Cold War and accompanying democratic revolutions, the international rise of authoritarian regimes and simultaneous decline of freedom in the geopolitical sphere makes discussions of democratic ideals and realities increasingly topical.

Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens of a nation determine its policies through elected representatives, direct voting, or in most cases, a combination of the two. Furthermore, in democratic elections, voters must have the capacity to replace political parties and leaders based off popular support. Finally, a democracy must allow the majority of residents to participate in political processes and not exclude certain groups of people from the political sphere on the basis on race, gender, class or sexual orientation.

First and foremost, democracies are a crucial step in achieving equality for oppressed groups by giving people who would otherwise be excluded from politics the ability to vote for the policies and people that they believe in. When given the right to vote, marginalized groups are naturally more likely to support politicians who will work to end the oppressive policies that are prevalent throughout the world. Some argue that democracy alone is insufficient in the pursuit of equality because the majority faction will still overpower minority factions. While this may be true, the importance of democracy should be viewed through a lens of the possible alternatives; other systems of government, such as autocracies, theocracies and monarchies are comparatively worse for achieving equality because they exclusively allow one person or group of people to make decisions for an entire population. Only democracy allows all groups, regardless of race, gender identity, class or sexual orientation, to participate in politics.

Not only does democracy allow all people to have an equal voice, but it is also inherently an extremely flexible system, which allows for the government to adapt according to changing ideologies. Because elected representatives have an incentive to maintain their positions of power, they appeal to public opinion to remain popular. Although many people critique democratic politicians for their inauthenticity, politicians mirroring the beliefs of the people is actually positive because it ensures that that the majority of citizens' beliefs are reflected in national policies. Furthermore, it functions as a crucial check on people in positions of power because if they act in an unpopular or unethical way, they will likely be voted out of office.

Finally, living in a democracy is important because democracies are the most statistically significant factor in reducing inter and intra state conflict. Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute David Cortright and his colleagues conducted a study to determine the validity of democratic peace theory and examine how regime type relates to violence. They concluded that democracies are much less likely to both engage in war with other states and to participate in civil wars. This is likely because war, in any form, is politically unpopular as it costs human lives, which thus incentivizes democracies to avoid it at all costs. Civil wars in particular are unlikely in democracies because democratic governments function as a safety valve for discontent; while disaffected civilians living in democracies can express their grievances in the form of free speech or exercising their right to vote, citizens living in autocracies have no choice other than violence if they hope for governmental change because they lack political power. Cortright also cites Rudolph Rummel's book Death By Government, in which Rummel finds that autocratic regimes are three and a half times more likely to commit genocide than democratic regimes. Cortright suggests this is a result of the prevalence of exclusionary ideology that is reinforced by authoritarian regimes in comparison with democratic ones.

Some may argue that autocratic governments are preferable to democracies because they are more efficient. It is true that autocratic regimes are able to pass and implement policies in a more timely manner. However, the power of democracy lies in its ability to gradually change. Complex issues should not be swiftly and unilaterally decided by one ruler; they should be debated upon by large groups of people examining both sides of the issue until the majority is able to find a consensus.

Another common criticism of democracy that proponents of autocracies present is the lack of expertise of voters. While every voter is certainly not an expert on every topic, democracies encourage citizens to learn more about the world around them by creating a mutual responsibility between each voter and his or her nation, and by extension, his or her world. Democracies motivate voters to do research on important candidates and policies, whereas non-democratic governments foster political apathy because one's opinions have no impact on the world around them.

The 2018 Varieties of Democracy Report concludes that one third of the world's population lives in a country in which democracy is declining. Even more frighteningly, the Freedom House reports that the global freedom index decreased for the twelfth successive year. Editor Gideon Rose grimly wrote in the May/June 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs, "Some say that global democracy is experiencing its worst setback since the 1930s and that it will continue to retreat unless rich countries find ways to reduce inequality and manage the information revolution. Those are the optimists. Pessimists fear the game is already over, that democratic dominance has ended for good."

I fall on the side of the optimists. In the face of the global decline of rule of law, freedom of the press, equal representation, separation of powers and freedom of speech, democracy will be resilient—but only if we fight for it. The time is now to advocate for a more democratic world, and many are taking up the cause. Countries such as Ethiopia are experiencing democratic reforms as the new prime minister has freed political prisoners and promised more fair elections. Even in democratic nations such as the United States, the effects of political movements such as the Women's March and March For Our Lives, which were only possible because of the right of citizens to peaceably assemble, are evident.

Although democracy is far from a perfect political system, it is undoubtedly an important tool in achieving equality, decreasing conflict, and increasing civic engagement, making it the best available system of government.

Alexandra Mork is a former winner of Carnegie Council's international student essay contest. In 2018, while a junior at Harvard-Westlake High School in Los Angeles, Mork drafted the winning student essay titled, "Why Democracy is the Best We've Got." Mork is currently a student at Brown University where she serves as managing editor for the Brown Political Review.

You may also like

FEB 6, 2023 • Article

Ethics, Escalation, and Engagement in Ukraine and Beyond

Now that HIMAR and Patriot missiles as well as Leopard and Abrams tanks are on the way to Ukraine, NATO unity is at a high ...

By Joel H. Rosenthal

MAY 3, 2022 • Article

Why Democracy vs. Autocracy Misses the Point

Today, the world seems to be laser-focused on the struggle of "democracy vs. autocracy," but what if this ideological debate is missing the point? Columbia ...

MAR 18, 2022 • Podcast

Red Carpet: Hollywood, China, and the Global Battle for Cultural Supremacy, with Erich Schwartzel

Hollywood has long been part of the United States' soft power arsenal. Now, that soft power is threatened by the larger geostrategic competition between the ...

Ethics Empowered

Using the power of ethics to build a better world

Sign up for news & events

[email protected] 212-838-4122 170 East 64th Street New York, NY 10065

• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility Policy

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Top Questions

Fundamental questions

• Prehistoric forms of democracy
• Classical Greece
• The Roman Republic
• “Constitutional oligarchies”
• A democratic dilemma
• Continental Europe
• The United States
• Democracy or republic?
• Solving the dilemma
• Factions and parties
• Majority rule, minority rights, majority tyranny
• Failures of nondemocratic systems
• Market economies
• Economic well-being
• Political culture
• Presidential and parliamentary systems
• Unitary and federal systems
• Proportional and winner-take-all systems
• Two-party and multiparty systems
• Majoritarian and consensual systems
• The legitimacy of government
• Answers to fundamental questions
• Montesquieu
• Features of ideal democracy
• Ideal and representative democracy
• Actual democracies
• The value of democracy
• Economic insecurity and inequality
• The costs of identity politics
• Democracy and clientelism
• Authoritarian threats
• Technological developments

What is democracy?

Where was democracy first practiced, how is democracy better than other forms of government, why does democracy need education.

• Why is Pericles important?

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Social Science LibreTexts - Democracies and Democratization
• Khan Academy - Types of democracy
• PBS LearningMedia - The Birth of Democracy | The Greeks
• Princeton University - Populism and Democratic Theory
• The UNESCO Courier - What is democracy?
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Democracy
• Loyola University Chicago - Political Legitimacy and Democracy
• democracy - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• democracy - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the “people,” a group historically constituted by only a minority of the population (e.g., all free adult males in ancient Athens or all sufficiently propertied adult males in 19th-century Britain) but generally understood since the mid-20th century to include all (or nearly all) adult citizens.

Studies of contemporary nonliterate tribal societies and other evidence suggest that democracy, broadly speaking, was practiced within tribes of hunter-gatherers in prehistoric times. The transition to settled agricultural communities led to inequalities of wealth and power between and within communities and hierarchical nondemocratic forms of social organization. Thousands of years later, in the 6th century BCE, a relatively democratic form of government was introduced in the city-state of Athens by Cleisthenes .

States with democratic governments prevent rule by autocrats, guarantee fundamental individual rights, allow for a relatively high level of political equality, and rarely make war on each other. As compared with nondemocratic states, they also better foster human development as measured by indicators such as health and education , provide more prosperity for their citizens, and ensure a broader range of personal freedoms.

The hallmark of democracy is that it permits citizens to participate in making laws and public policies by regularly choosing their leaders and by voting in assemblies or referenda . If their participation is to be meaningful and effective—if the democracy is to be real and not a sham—citizens must understand their own interests, know the relevant facts, and have the ability to critically evaluate political arguments. Each of those things presupposes education .

Recent News

democracy , literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratia , which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century bce to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states , notably Athens .

(Read Madeleine Albright’s Britannica essay on democracy.)

The etymological origins of the term democracy hint at a number of urgent problems that go far beyond semantic issues. If a government of or by the people—a “popular” government—is to be established, at least five fundamental questions must be confronted at the outset, and two more are almost certain to be posed if the democracy continues to exist for long.

(1) What is the appropriate unit or association within which a democratic government should be established? A town or city? A country? A business corporation ? A university? An international organization ? All of these?

(2) Given an appropriate association—a city, for example—who among its members should enjoy full citizenship? Which persons, in other words, should constitute the dēmos ? Is every member of the association entitled to participate in governing it? Assuming that children should not be allowed to participate (as most adults would agree), should the dēmos include all adults? If it includes only a subset of the adult population, how small can the subset be before the association ceases to be a democracy and becomes something else, such as an aristocracy (government by the best, aristos ) or an oligarchy (government by the few, oligos )?

(3) Assuming a proper association and a proper dēmos , how are citizens to govern? What political organizations or institutions will they need? Will these institutions differ between different kinds of associations—for example, a small town and a large country?

(4) When citizens are divided on an issue, as they often will be, whose views should prevail, and in what circumstances? Should a majority always prevail, or should minorities sometimes be empowered to block or overcome majority rule?

(5) If a majority is ordinarily to prevail, what is to constitute a proper majority? A majority of all citizens? A majority of voters? Should a proper majority comprise not individual citizens but certain groups or associations of citizens, such as hereditary groups or territorial associations?

(6) The preceding questions presuppose an adequate answer to a sixth and even more important question: Why should “the people” rule? Is democracy really better than aristocracy or monarchy ? Perhaps, as Plato argues in the Republic , the best government would be led by a minority of the most highly qualified persons—an aristocracy of “ philosopher-kings .” What reasons could be given to show that Plato’s view is wrong?

(7) No association could maintain a democratic government for very long if a majority of the dēmos —or a majority of the government—believed that some other form of government were better. Thus, a minimum condition for the continued existence of a democracy is that a substantial proportion of both the dēmos and the leadership believes that popular government is better than any feasible alternative . What conditions, in addition to this one, favour the continued existence of democracy? What conditions are harmful to it? Why have some democracies managed to endure, even through periods of severe crisis, while so many others have collapsed?

What ails American democracy, and what to do about it

Harvard Kennedy School scholars examine threats and responses.

Harvard Kennedy School faculty share insights into the evident fragility of American democratic norms and institutions following the attack on the United States Capitol by followers of President Trump. These essays examine the nature and scale of the threat and weigh potential avenues for protecting and nurturing democracy. They were written before the U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Trump on Wednesday for the second time.

• Nicholas Burns
• Cornell William Brooks
• Joan Donovan
• Thomas Patterson
• Tarek Masoud
• Archon Fung
• Pippa Norris

Allies fret and foes gloat at the homegrown threats to American democracy

Nicholas Burns, Roy and Barbara Goodman Family Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations

Fragility, white nationalism, and redemptive healing

The second thing that I think is incredibly important is this notion that white nationalism is a threat to the black and brown ‘they’, as opposed to an existential threat to the multi-racial multi-ethnic ‘we the people.’ It's clear here that what happened last week is a threat to democracy itself. Not they, not them, but us.

Last point here that I'm still processing as a human being, not as a member of the Kennedy school faculty, but as a human being, as a moral being, is this notion that healing can be harmful or that healing can be redemptive. In other words, this impatient call for the country to heal, to come together, to paper over the differences, to paper over the divisions, to paper over the violence that we were subject to both morally and physically, is offensive. And this is in fact a common response to this challenge. 

[But] healing can be redemptive, which is to say that we can patiently process as we're doing today what we've come through, the ways in which our sensibilities have been violated; the degree to which many of us feel physically vulnerable. For those of us on this call who have been subject to death threats, who have been subject to racist thoughts and hate, this was a moment of vulnerability.

(Excerpt from Kennedy School community online discussion ) 

Cornell William Brooks, Hauser Professor of the Practice of Nonprofit Organizations; Professor of the Practice of Public Leadership and Social Justice

Curbing the deadly damage caused by misinformation

Joan Donovan, adjunct lecturer in public policy, research director, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy 

The GOP’s record of undermining democracy predates Trump election claims

When it became clear that mail-in balloting might benefit Biden and other Democratic candidates, Republicans claimed without a shred of evidence that it was riddled with fraud and then obstructed it. Texas’s Republican governor limited each of the state’s counties to a single drop-off location, seeking to suppress the vote in heavily populated Democratic counties. Montana and North Carolina were among the Republican states that sought to limit mail-in voting . The Trump administration cut Postal Service funding in hope that mail-in ballots would arrive too late to be counted. 

The list of Republican shenanigans is lengthy. There was no constitutional barrier to prevent Wisconsin’s outgoing Republican governor Scott Walker, in consort with the state’s Republican-controlled legislature, to strip the governor’s office of power before the incoming Democratic governor could take office in 2019. But it violated the longstanding norm of American politics that the outgoing party accept the transfer of power that comes with losing an election . North Carolina’s Republicans pulled the same stunt when the state’s voters elected a Democratic governor in 2016. 

The 1965 Voting Rights Act was designed to end the voter suppression that had long darkened America’s elections. It worked until Republicans began devising schemes to keep minorities from voting. In the early 2000s, they enacted laws requiring residents to have a government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or passport, in order to register to vote. Minority group members, young adults, and people of low income—all of whom tend to vote Democratic—are less likely than white Americans as a whole to have a passport or driver’s license.

Nearly thirty states have since enacted voter ID laws and all but one did so when controlled by Republican lawmakers who claimed without evidence that the requirement is needed to prevent voter fraud. The true purpose is unmistakable. As a longtime Republican political consultant said: “Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” Republican lawmakers in Florida and Pennsylvania slipped up and publicly said that the aim was to suppress the Democratic vote.

Perhaps the mob that ransacked the Capital last week will lead the GOP to change colors. It will, of course, force the GOP to distance itself from Donald Trump. But don’t expect more. Republicans oppose strengthening the Voting Rights Act and have signaled their intention to limit mail-in voting . And, if their recent past is a guide, they won’t stop there.

Thomas E. Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government & the Press and author of Is the Republican Party Destroying Itself?

Did the Capitol Hill riots demonstrate US democracy’s weakness or its strength?

Tarek Masoud, Professor of Public Policy and Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman Professor of International Relations

How can we build a democracy that we all believe in?

Though this idea of putting citizens in charge of democracy would be new to the United States, the experience of Citizen Assemblies from countries such Canada, Ireland, and Iceland shows that they can generate very sensible recommendations that many other citizens like and accept as legitimate. Most of our political leaders will reject the idea that citizens should have a powerful role in improving our democracy, not least because they won their positions according to the current rules of democracy. But if the Stop the Steal riots last week mobilize us to be more ambitious and innovative about our republic, to be curiously searching for better ways from all around the world rather than congratulating ourselves about our exceptional system of government, we can build together a democracy that we all believe in.

(Excerpt from a longer essay )

Archon Fung, Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government

The roots of democratic backsliding go beyond Trump 

But the rot goes deeper than one man. In the last eight elections, from 1992 to 2020, the Republican Party won a majority of the popular vote only once (in 2004), and as its national electoral prospects declined, it has drifted further toward illiberalism. Two recent independent cross-national studies, by the V-Party project and the Global Party Survey , show just how extreme the GOP has become in its position toward the principles of liberal democracy, where it is now estimated to be closer to authoritarian populist parties such as Spain’s Vox, the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom, and the Alterative for Germany than it is to mainstream conservative, Christian Democratic, and center-right parties. By contrast, the studies found that the Democratic Party’s position is similar to that of many moderate parties within the mainstream center-left. 

Finally, the problem also lies in the Republican base. The foundations of American civic culture—attitudes of trust in government, confidence in the political system, and support for democracy—have weakened over the decades. The World Values Survey asks whether people approve of various types of political systems, and in 1995, 25 percent of Americans said it was a good idea to have “a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections.” That already alarming share rose steadily, and by 2017, 38 percent of Americans embraced this belief. Trump was thus throwing a lit match into a puddle of gasoline when he chose to claim that Biden had stolen the election.

(Excerpt from commentary in Foreign Affairs, “It Happened in America”)

Pippa Norris, the Paul F. McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics

Header image: Police clear the U.S. Capitol Building with tear gas as supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gather outside, in Washington, U.S. January 6, 2021. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith

More from HKS

A roadmap for revitalizing the transatlantic alliance, the value and challenges of regulating big tech, the one problem the next administration needs to fix.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

A website to support students and teachers of A-Level Politics

Edexcel Past Questions and Topic Tracker

Paper 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas

Using the source, evaluate the view that UK democracy is in crisis (Sample).

Using the source, evaluate the view that the major parties still remain the dominant force in UK politics (Sample).

Evaluate the view that general elections in the UK are lost by the government rather than won by the opposition (Sample).

Evaluate the view that social factors determine voting behaviour (Sample).

To what extent do modern and classical liberals agree over the role of the state? (Sample).

To what extent are different socialists committed to ‘equality of outcome’? (Sample).

Using the source, evaluate the view that the outcomes of general elections are stable and predictable (2019).

Using the source, evaluate the view that proportional representation would improve elections to the House of Commons (2019).

Evaluate the view that think-tanks, lobbyists and pressure groups have little impact on government decisions (2019).

Evaluate the view that the only political parties that matter in our political system are the Labour and Conservative parties (2019).

To what extent do socialists have conflicting views over how the economy should operate? (2019)

To what extent are conservatives united in their view of society? (2019)

Using the source, evaluate the view that a person’s age and the media have now replaced social class and region as clear indicators of voting behaviour (2020).

Using the source, evaluate the view that state funding of political parties would be preferable to a situation in which a party can win a general election because it has more members and income than other parties (2020).

Evaluate the view that the actions of pressure groups have been more significant than government legislation in defending and promoting rights in the UK (2020).

Evaluate the view that the various electoral systems in use in the UK make significant differences to party representation (2020).

To what extent do modern liberals accept the ideas of classical liberals? (2020).

To what extent does socialism depend on a view of society based only on class? (2020).

Using the source, evaluate the view that opinion polls bring more advantages than disadvantages to elections and referendums (2021).

Using the source, evaluate the view that in a democracy MPs are free to ignore referendum results and their own political party’s manifesto (2021).

Evaluate the view that the emergence of multiple parties in the UK means that the Westminster electoral system must be changed (2021).

Evaluate the view that the influence of the media in politics is exaggerated; it is not heavily biased and has little power of persuasion (2021).

To what extent is liberalism more concerned with society than with the economy? (2021).

To what extent is there more to unite rather than divide the New Right from One-Nation conservatives? (2021).

Using the source, evaluate the view that ‘pick-and-mix’ politics is replacing ‘Left-Right’ politics and political parties are becoming more internally divided than ever. (2022)

Using the source, evaluate the view – with specific reference to at least one devolved region using an alternative electoral system – that the case for PR to replace the Westminster FPTP voting system has now been established (2022)

Evaluate the view that it is the media not pressure groups that has the greater influence on governments (2022)

Evaluate the view that neither individual rights nor collective rights in the UK are adequately protected and guaranteed (2022)

To what extent are conservatives united in their attitude towards the state? (2022)

To what extent is socialism more disunited than united? (2022)

Specimen Papers (Locked – Topics only, not questions)

Source 1 – Democracy and Participation

Source 2 – Electoral Systems

Essay 1 – Political Parties

Essay 2 – Electoral Systems

Ideologies 1 – Conservatism

Ideologies 2 – Conservatism

2022 Mock Papers (Locked – Topics only, not questions

Source 1 – Political Parties

Source 2 – Democracy and Participation

Essay 1 – Voting Behaviour

Essay 2 – Democracy and Participation

Ideologies 2 – Socialism

2023 Papers (Locked – Topics only, not questions)

Essay 1 – Electoral Systems

Essay 2 – Political Parties

Ideologies 1 – Liberalism

Paper 2: UK Government and Optional Political Ideologies

Paper 3A: US and Comparative Government and Politics

Paper 3B: Global Politics

Share this:

Recent posts, what is the office for budget responsibility and how do keir starmer’s government plan to reform it.

What is the history of the Liberal Democrats and where do they stand today?

How effectively are Human Rights and Civil Liberties protected in the UK?

• 24 Mark Ideologies Question
• AQA – Paper 1
• Comparative Theories
• Constitution
• Democracy and Participation
• Edexcel – Paper 1
• Edexcel – Paper 2
• Edexcel – Paper 3B
• Electoral Systems
• Exam Papers
• Examination Skills
• Exemplar Essay
• Global Politics
• Human Rights and Environment
• Political and Economic Governance
• Political Ideologies
• Political Parties
• Power and Developments
• Regionalism
• Relations Between Branches
• Revision Guide
• The Executive
• The State and Globalisation
• UK Government
• UK Politics
• Uncategorized
• Voting Behaviour
• WJEC – Paper 1
• WJEC – Paper 2

Democracy in America

89 pages • 2 hours read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Volume 1, Part 1, Introduction

Volume 1, Part 1, Chapters 1-2

Volume 1, Part 1, Chapters 3-4

Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 5

Volume 1, Part 1, Chapters 6-7

Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 8

Volume 1, Part 2, Chapters 1-2

Volume 1, Part 2, Chapters 3-4

Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 5

Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 6

Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 7

Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 8

Volume 1, Part 2, Chapters 9-10

Volume 2, Notice

Volume 2, Part 1, Chapters 1-2

Volume 2, Part 1, Chapters 3-5

Volume 2, Part 1, Chapters 6-8

Volume 2, Part 1, Chapters 9-10

Volume 2, Part 1, Chapters 11-12

Volume 2, Part 1, Chapters 13-15

Volume 2, Part 1, Chapters 16-19

Volume 2, Part 1, Chapters 20-21

Volume 2, Part 2, Chapters 1-3

Volume 2, Part 2, Chapters 4-7

Volume 2, Part 2, Chapters 8-12

Volume 2, Part 2, Chapters 13-17

Volume 2, Part 2, Chapters 18-20

Volume 2, Part 3, Chapters 1-4

Volume 2, Part 3, Chapters 5-7

Volume 2, Part 3, Chapters 8-12

Volume 2, Part 3, Chapters 13-16

Volume 2, Part 3, Chapters 17-20

Volume 2, Part 3, Chapters 21-26

Volume 2, Part 4, Chapters 1-3

Volume 2, Part 4, Chapters 4-6

Volume 2, Part 4, Chapters 7-8

Key Figures

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Describe how Tocqueville is particularly positive about the political culture of New England. Given his concerns about the tyranny of the majority, why do you think he is so enthusiastic about town meetings and local government?

How does Tocqueville argue that law, lawyers, and jury service are beneficial to American democracy, particularly as an antidote to the tyranny of the majority?

What arguments does Tocqueville offer for why the United States will endure despite regional rivalries and differences?

Related Titles

By Alexis de Tocqueville

The Old Regime and The French Revolution

Featured Collections

Audio Study Guides

View Collection

Books on U.S. History

French Literature

Political Science Texts

Politics & Government

• CEU PU - Deutsch
• Közép-európai Egyetem

New Essay Series: Open Questions in the Comparative Study of Democracy and Authoritarianism

New essay series: Open Questions in the Comparative Study of Democracy and Authoritarianism.

Distinguished by a long title and a short acronym (OQ), this series of short analytic essays raises relevant questions about democracy and authoritarianism that have not been adequately addressed (or answered) by comparative political science.

Coordinated by Matthijs Bogaards (ceu Department of Political Science) and Andreas Schedler (CEU Department of Political Science & Democracy Institute), it is a joint initiative by the DI Research Group De- and Re-Democratization (drd) and the ceu Department of Political Science .

The inaugural essay:

Andreas Schedler, “Again, What Is Populism?”

https://revdem.ceu.edu/2024/02/01/again-what-is-populism/

OQ is published by the Review of Democracy, the online journal of the CEU Democracy Institute: https://revdem.ceu.edu/category/open-questions/

Managing Editors of the Review, Lucie Hunter and Katarzyna Kryzanowska, as well their predecessor, Michal Matlak.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Can Americans be optimistic about their democracy?

Sept. 15 is the United Nations’ International Day of Democracy, an annual moment to assess the health of democracy around the world. Unfortunately, as numerous studies have demonstrated, democracy has been in decline in many nations in recent years.

Americans are unhappier and more divided than most about the state of their democracy, and particularly gloomy about its prospects for improvement.

The United States is no exception. In fact, Americans are unhappier and more divided than most about the state of their democracy, and particularly gloomy about its prospects for improvement. Americans certainly haven’t given up on democracy, but if the U.S. is going to turn around these negative trends, we may need a renewed democratic imagination and a new, broad-based conception of American identity to see past what feel like insurmountable obstacles.  

The country’s notably grim political mood and desire for change show up across many survey questions. Cross-national surveys at Pew Research Center show Americans are among the most dissatisfied with the functioning of their democracy, and they are particularly negative on whether politicians care what voters think.

In a 2021 Center survey of adults in 17 advanced economies, 85% in the U.S. said their political system needs major changes or needs to be completely reformed. Italy and Spain were the only countries we surveyed where larger shares of the public expressed this view. Despite the desire for change, most Americans who said the U.S. political system needs to be fixed also said they are not confident it could be changed effectively.

Why have Americans lost confidence in our ability to reform? Surely, part of the answer is that our Constitution is very hard to amend. And at times, reverence for the Constitution can make it seem like an immutable set of rules, rather than a dynamic document designed to be updated as the country – and its ideas about democracy – evolve.

We’ve had the same Constitution for well over two centuries, and we’ve nonetheless had periods of significant reform. What makes today different?

But we’ve had the same Constitution for well over two centuries, and we’ve nonetheless had periods of significant reform. What makes today different? In part, the country’s deep political divisions. On issue after issue, Americans are sharply divided along partisan and ideological lines. Here again, international comparisons are instructive: Our polling finds that the gap between the ideological right and left is wider in the U.S. than in other countries on many issues, including abortion , climate change and same-sex marriage .  

We’re also particularly conscious of our internal divisions. In a 2022 survey , 88% of Americans said there are strong conflicts in the country between people who support different political parties. South Korea was the only country we surveyed in which a larger share of adults held this opinion.

And the divisions extend beyond party and ideology. We’ve found that Americans are more likely than others to say there are strong conflicts between people of different ethnic or racial backgrounds in their country.

These perceived divisions make Americans feel more disconnected. While a 66% majority of Americans in 2023 said they feel close to other people in the country, this was the lowest percentage among the 24 nations polled. And Americans were the second lowest on a similar question about feeling close to people in their community. A disconnected nation lacks the bonds of trust necessary for bridging political and social divides.

Today, as we enter the final weeks of a tumultuous election year, our political divisions are heightened, and Americans remain sharply divided into partisan camps.

Still, despite our deep political and social divisions, and the frustrations so many Americans feel, there are hopeful signs.

Americans are tired of division and existential, zero-sum political battles – especially since both sides feel like they are losing those battles.

For starters, Americans are tired of division and existential, zero-sum political battles – especially since both sides feel like they are losing those battles. And nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics. 

Fortunately, they have ideas about how to change things. Last year, we asked respondents in the U.S. and 23 other nations to describe in their own words how their country’s democracy could improve . Americans had a lot to say. They want government reform and different political leaders. They want to reduce the influence of special interests and money in politics. And there is broad support for specific reforms, such as term limits for Congress, age limits for federal elected officials and Supreme Court justices, and abolishing the Electoral College.

The challenge for would-be reformers is overcoming Americans’ pessimism about our capacity for change. Americans will need to recapture their sense of political imagination and regain confidence in their ability to transcend political divisions and trust one another long enough to pursue difficult changes that will make democracy work better.

This may require developing new, more unifying and more inclusive forms of American identity – essentially, a conception of America that is broad enough for everyone to have a place in it, and for people to feel that losing an election won’t mean losing their democracy and their idea of what America means.

• Political Ideals & Systems
• Political Polarization

Richard Wike is director of global attitudes research at Pew Research Center .

Michael Dimock is the president of Pew Research Center .

72% of Americans say the U.S. used to be a good example of democracy, but isn’t anymore

Satisfaction with democracy has declined in recent years in high-income nations, more than 80% of americans believe elected officials don’t care what people like them think, support for democracy is strong in hong kong and taiwan, how people in 24 countries think democracy can improve, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center