Democratic rule 1

Features of modern democracy

The first part of the module introduces the features, arguments for, and types of democracy. The second part
is focused not only on the theories linking prosperity with democracy but also the four waves of democracy. The
distinctive features of and the challenges to democracy in each wave was also examined.
After watching the video and reading the excerpted materials, you should be able to:
a. reflect on the pros and cons of democracy
b. analyze points of view regarding democracy

Key Concepts to Understand:

checks and balances direct democracy echo chamber e-democracy
flawed democracy liberal democracy modernization representative democracy
rule of law sortition structural violence

Before you begin reading, it would be best to watch Brett Hennig’s talk about sortition,
his alternative to a broken democracy, in this link:
https://www.ted.com/talks/brett_hennig_what_if_we_replaced_politicians_with_randomly_sel
ected_people#t-559469 Copy the link and paste it on your browser to download.
After watching Hennig’s talk, reflect on the feasibility of his proposed sortition in the
Philippines. If you do not trust yourself to be in a position to make an evaluation of sortition’s
feasibility in our country, then there is a good reason to start reviewing your PS 100 and PS
101 by reading and understanding the given reading material that was (excerpted from: Hague, R.,
Harrop, M. & McCormick, J. (2016). Comparative government and politics: An introduction. 10th Edition. USA: Palgrave.)

The core principle of democracy is self-rule; the word itself comes from the Greek
demokratia, meaning rule (kratos) by the people (demos). From this perspective, democracy
refers not to the election of rulers by the ruled but to the denial of any separation between the
two. The model democracy is a form of self-government in which all adult citizens participate in
shaping collective decisions in an atmosphere of equality and deliberation, and in which state
and society become one. But this is no more than an ideal, rarely found in practice except at the
local level in decentralized systems of government.

Key Arguments:
• About half the people in the world today live under democratic rule, even though there is still no
universally agreed definition of democracy. Democracy is an ideal, not just a system of government.
• Studying Athenian direct democracy offers a standard of self-rule against which today’s
representative (indirect) democracies are often judged.
• Representative democracy limits the people to electing a government, while liberal democracy goes
a stage further by placing limits on government and protecting the rights of citizens.
• The impact of modernization (notably, economic development) on democracy raises the question of
whether liberal democracy is a sensible short-term goal for low-income countries lacking democratic
requisites.
• Democracies emerged in three main waves that resulted in most people in the world living under
democratic government, but democracies continue to face many problems, not least of which is a
worrying decline in levels of trust in government.
• A more recent approach to democracy, stimulated by recent transitions from authoritarian rule, is to
study how the old order collapses and the transition takes place
 Democratic rule 2

Features of modern democracy:

• Representative systems of government based on regular, fair, and competitive elections.
• Well-defined, stable, and predictable political institutions and processes, based on a distribution of
powers and a system of political checks and balances.
• A wide variety of institutionalized forms of political participation and representation, including multiple
political parties with a variety of platforms.
• Limits on the powers of government, and protection of individual rights and freedoms under the law,
sustained by an independent judiciary.
• An active, effective, and protected opposition.
• A diverse and independent media establishment, subject to few political controls and free to share a
wide variety of opinions.

Forms of Democracy:
Form Qualities
Direct democracy The citizens themselves debate and reach decisions on matters of
common interest.
Representative democracy Citizens elect a legislature and, in presidential systems, a chief
executive. Representatives are held to account at elections.
Liberal Democracy A form of indirect democracy in which the scope of democracy is limited
by constitutional protection of individual rights, including freedom of
assembly, property, religion, and speech. Free, fair, and regular elections
are based on near universal suffrage.

In trying to understand democracy, we should avoid the comforting assumption that it is

self-evidently the best system of rule. It certainly has many advantages over dictatorship, and it
can bring stability to historically divided societies provided the groups involved agree to share
power through elections. But it has many imperfections, as British political leader Winston
Churchill once famously acknowledged when he argued that democracy was the worst form of
government, except for all the others. In coming to grips with the concept, we can distinguish
among three different strands: direct democracy, representative democracy, and liberal
democracy.
Direct democracy. The purest form of democracy is the type of direct democracy that
was exemplified in the government of Athens in the fifth century BCE, and which continues to
shape our assessments of modern liberal democracy. The Athenians believed that citizens were
the primary agent for reaching collective decisions, and that direct popular involvement and
open deliberation were educational in character, yielding confident, informed and committed
citizens who were sensitive both to the public good and to the range of interests and opinions
found even in small communities. xxx
The scope of Athenian democracy was wide, providing an enveloping framework within
which citizens were expected to develop their true qualities. Politics was an amateur activity, to
be undertaken by all citizens not just in the interest of the community at large, but also to
enhance their own development. To engage in democracy was to become informed about the
polis, and an educated citizenry meant a stronger whole. But there were flaws in the system:
• Because citizenship was restricted to men whose parents were citizens, most adults –
including women, slaves, and foreign residents – were excluded.
• Turnout was a problem, with most citizens being absent from most assembly meetings even
after the introduction of an attendance payment.
• The system was time-consuming, expensive, and over-complex, especially for such a small
society.
• The principle of self-government did not always lead to decisive and coherent policy. Indeed,
the lack of a permanent bureaucracy eventually contributed to a period of ineffective
governance, leading to the fall of the Athenian republic after defeat in war.
 Democratic rule 3

xxx Despite this, direct democracy is hard to find in modern political systems. It exists
most obviously in the form either of referendums and initiatives xxx, or of decision-making at the
community level, for example in a village or a school where some decisions might be made
without recourse to formal law or elected officials. To go any further, some would argue, would
be to run the dangers inherent in the lack of interest and knowledge that many people display in
relation to politics, and this would undermine effective governance. But create a more
participatory social environment, respond its supporters, and people will be up to – and up for –
the task of self-government. Society will have schooled them in, and trained them for,
democratic politics, given that ‘individuals learn to participate by participating’ (Pateman, 2012: 15).
There has been some recent talk of the possibilities of electronic direct democracy
(other authors use the term – technodemocracy), or e-democracy, through which those with an opinion
about an issue can express themselves using the internet, via blogs, surveys, responses to
news stories, or comments in social media. These are channels that are sometimes seen as a
useful remedy to charges that representative government has become elitist, and while little
research has yet been done on the political effects of social media, there are several early
indications of its possibilities: it provides for the instant availability of more political information, it
allows political leaders to communicate more often and more directly with voters (helping
change the way that electoral campaigns are run), and it has been credited with helping
encourage people to turn out in support of political demonstrations of the kind that led to the
overthrow of the Egyptian government in 2011 and the fall of the Ukrainian government in 2014.
But there are several problems with e-democracy:
• The opinions expressed online are not methodically collected and assessed as they would be
in a true direct democracy; the voices that are heard tend to be those that are recorded most
often, and there is often a bandwagon effect reflected – for example – in the phenomenon of
trending hashtags on Twitter.
• Many of those who express themselves via social media are either partisan or deliberately
provocative, as reflected in the often inflammatory postings of anonymous internet ‘trolls’. The
result is to skew the direction taken by debates.
• It has led to heightened concerns about privacy, perhaps feeding into the kind of mistrust of
government that has led to reduced support for conventional forms of participation (xxx).
• E-democracy relies upon having access to the internet, which is a problem in poor countries,
and even, sometimes, in poorer regions of wealthy countries.
• As with other media the internet can be manipulated by authoritarian regimes, resulting in the
provision of selective information and interpretation.

More broadly, the internet has provided so many sources of information that consumers
can quickly become overwhelmed, advancing the phenomenon of the echo chamber;
whatever media they use, people will tend to use only those sources of information that fit with
their values and preconceived ideas, and will be less likely to seek out a variety of sources. The
result: interference with the free marketplace of ideas, the reinforcement of biases and closed
minds, and the promotion of myths and a narrow interpretation of events. The internet was once
described as an information superhighway, but perhaps it is better regarded as a series of gated
information communities.
Representative democracy. In its modern state form, and with barely a nod to ancient
tradition, the democratic principle has transmuted from self-government to elected government,
resulting in the phenomenon of representative democracy, an indirect form of government. To
the Greeks, the idea of representation would have seemed preposterous: how can the people
be said to govern themselves if a separate class of rulers exists? As late as the eighteenth
century, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau warned that ‘the moment a people
gives itself representatives, it is no longer free. It ceases to exist’ (1762: 145). In interpreting
representative government as elected monarchy, the German scholar Robert Michels (1911: 38)
argued in a similar vein:
 Democratic rule 4

Under representative government the difference between democracy and monarchy … is

altogether insignificant – a difference not in substance but in form. The sovereign people elect, in
place of a king, a number of kinglets!

xxx. Any modern version of democracy had to be compatible with large states and
electorates. One of the first authors to graft representation on to democracy was Thomas Paine,
a British-born political activist who experienced both the French and the American revolutions.
In his Rights of Man (1791/2: 180), Paine wrote:
The original simple democracy … is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the
inconvenience of its form. Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of
secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of
government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of
territory and population.

xxx Degrees of democracy

Unanimity Everyone agrees, or at least acquiesces.
Consensus No one disagrees.
Concurrent majority More than one majority required: for example, most voters and most
regions of a country.
Absolute majority More than half of those entitled to vote.
Simple majority More than half of those voting.
Qualified majority More than a simple majority: typically, two-thirds.
Blocking minority A minority is able to prevent a proposal from passing.
Weighted majority A majority after adjusting votes for differences in voting power: for example,
shareholders may have one vote per share.
Plurality The largest number of votes but not necessarily a majority.

xxx To adapt Paine’s phrase, representative government has proved to be a highly

convenient form. xxx. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1943), Schumpeter conceived of
democracy as nothing more than party competition: ‘democracy means only that the people
have the opportunity of refusing or accepting the men who are to rule them’. Schumpeter
wanted to limit the contribution of ordinary voters because he doubted their political capacity:
The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the
political field. He argues and analyzes in a way that he would recognize as infantile within the
sphere of his real interests. He becomes a primitive again . (1943: 269)

Reflecting this jaundiced view, Schumpeter argued that elections should not even be
construed as a device through which voters elect a representative to carry out their will. Rather,
the point of elections is simply to produce a government. From this perspective, the voter
becomes a political accessory, restricted to choosing among broad packages of policies and
leaders prepared by the parties. Modern democracy is merely a way of deciding which party will
decide, a system far removed from the intense, educative discussions in the Athenian
assembly:
The deciding of issues by the electorate [is made] secondary to the election of the men who are
to do the deciding. To put it differently, we now take the view that the role of the people is to
produce a government. And we define the democratic method as that institutional arrangement
for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a
competitive struggle for the people’s vote. (Schumpeter, 1943: 270)

xxx. We might just view representation as a valuable division of labour for a specialized
world. In other words, a political life is available for those who want it, while those with
nonpolitical interests can limit their attention to monitoring government and voting at elections
(Schudson, 1998). In this way, elected rulers remain accountable for their decisions, albeit after the
event. xxx
 Democratic rule 5

xxx there are problems associated with the ways in which elections are structured, and
therefore with the ways in which citizens are represented. Votes are not always counted in an
equitable fashion or equally weighted; political parties are not always given the same amount of
attention by the media; money and special interests often skew the attention paid to competing
sets of policy choices; and voter turnout varies by age, gender, education, race, income, and
other factors. Questions are also raised about varying and often declining rates of voter turnout,
and elections can also be manipulated in numerous ways, including complex or inconvenient
registration procedures, the intimidation of voters, the poor organization of polling stations, and
the miscounting of ballots. xxx
Liberal democracy. Contemporary democracies are typically labelled liberal
democracies. The addition of the adjective liberal implies embracing the notion of an elected
representative government while adding a concern with limited government. Reflecting Locke’s
notion of natural rights xxx, the goal is to secure individual liberty, including freedom from
unwarranted demands by the state. Liberalism seeks to ensure that even a representative
government bows to the fundamental principle expressed by the English philosopher John
Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859: 68): ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’. By
constraining the authority of the governing parties, the population can be defended against its
rulers. At the same time, minorities can be protected from another of democracy’s inherent
dangers: tyranny by the majority. Another way of describing liberal democracy is majority rule
with minority rights.
So, xxx, liberal democracies offer governance by law, rather than by people. Under the
principle of the rule of law xxx, elected rulers and citizens alike are subject to constitutions
that usually include a statement of individual rights. Should the government become
overbearing, citizens can use domestic and international courts to uphold their rights. This law-
governed character of liberal democracy is the basis for Zakaria’s claim (2003: 27) that ‘the
Western model is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite but by the impartial judge’.
Of course, all democracies must allow space for political opinion to form and to be
expressed through political parties. As Beetham (2004: 65) rightly states, ‘without liberty, there can
be no democracy’. But, in liberal democracy, freedom is more than a device to secure
democracy; it is valued above, or certainly alongside, democracy itself. The argument is that
people can best develop and express their individuality (and, hence, contribute most effectively
to the common good) by taking responsibility for their own lives. xxx.
The protection of civil liberties is a key part of the meaning of liberal democracy. This
is based on the understanding that there are certain rights and freedoms that citizens must have
relative to government and that cannot be infringed by the actions of government. These include
the right to liberty, security, privacy, life, equal treatment, and a fair trial, as well as freedom of
speech and expression, of assembly and association, and of the press and religion. This is all
well and good, but it is not always easy to define what each of these means and where the
limitations fall in defining them. Even the most democratic of societies has had difficulty deciding
where the rights of one group of citizens ends and those of another begin, and where the
actions of government (particularly in regard to national security) restrict those of citizens. Civil
liberties: The rights that citizens have relative to government, and that should not be restricted
by government.
Take the question of freedom of speech as an example; democratic societies consider it
an essential part of what makes them democratic, and yet there are many ways in which it is
limited in practice. There are laws against slander (spoken defamation), libel (defamation through other
media), obscenity (an offence against prevalent morality), sedition (proposing insurrection against the established order),
and hate speech (attacking a person or group on the basis of their attributes). But defining what can be
considered legitimate free speech, and where such speech begins to impinge upon the rights
and sensibilities of others, is not easy. xxx
 Democratic rule 6

The concept of a flawed democracy contained within the Democracy Index is

particularly interesting in what it suggests about the limits on rights and liberties. For example,
India is often described as the world’s biggest democracy, and yet it is classified in the index as
flawed. At least part of the problem stems from the generalized phenomenon of structural
violence. Originating in neo-Marxism, this term is used to describe intangible forms of
oppression, or the ‘violence’ concealed within a social and political system. Hence the
oppression of women is a form of structural violence perpetrated by male-dominated political
systems, and extreme poverty is a form of violence perpetrated by one part of society on
another. In India, structural violence can be found in the effects of poverty and caste
oppression. These deep-rooted inequalities carry over to the political sphere, and impact on the
way Indians relate to their political system.
Some democracies emphasize the liberal in liberal democracy more than others, xxx. In
the US, the liberal component is entrenched by design. The founding fathers wanted, above all,
to forestall a dictatorship of any kind, including tyranny by the majority. To prevent any
government – and, especially, elected ones – from acquiring excessive power, the constitution
set up an intricate system of checks and balances. Authority is distributed not only among
federal institutions themselves (the executive, legislative, and judicial branches), but also between the
federal government and the 50 states. Power is certainly dispersed; some would say dissolved.
Where American democracy diffuses power across institutions, British democracy
emphasizes the sovereignty of Parliament. The electoral rules traditionally ensured a secure
majority of seats for the leading party, which then forms the government. This ruling party
retains control over its own members in the House of Commons, enabling it to ensure the
passage of its bills into law. In this way, the hallowed sovereignty of Britain’s Parliament is
leased to the party in office.
Except for the government’s sense of self-restraint, the institutions that limit executive
power in the United States – including a codified constitution, a separation of powers and
federalism – are absent in Britain. Far more than the United States, Britain exemplifies
Schumpeter’s model of democracy as an electoral competition between organized parties. ‘We
are the masters now’, trumpeted a Labour MP after his party’s triumph in 1945. And his party
did indeed use its power to institute substantial economic and social reforms.
But even Britain’s representative democracy has moved in a more liberal direction. The
country’s judiciary has become more active and independent, stimulated in part by the influence
of the European Court of Justice. Privatization has reduced the state’s direct control over the
economy. Also, the electoral system is now less likely to deliver a substantial majority for a
single party. But, from a comparative perspective, a winning party (or even coalition) in Britain is
still rewarded with an exceptionally free hand. The contrast with the United States remains. xxx
 Democratic rule 7

Enhancement Activity 1:
Evaluate what you understood by differentiating the following terms:

1. Representative democracy vs. liberal democracy

2. E -democracy vs. Athenian direct democracy

3. Absolute majority vs. Qualified majority

Enhancement Activity 2:
Define the following terms:

1. Rule of law

2. Echo chamber

3. End of history

4. Flawed democracy

5. Schumpeter’s concept of democracy

6. Representative government as elected monarchy

Democracy and modernization

Linking modernity and democracy carries important policy implications. It suggests that
advocates of democracy should give priority to economic development xxx
The political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset (1959) provided the classic statement of
the impact of modernization, suggesting that ‘the more well to-do a [country], the greater the
chances that it will sustain democracy’. Using data from the late 1950s, Lipset found strong
correlations between affluence, industrialization, urbanization and education, on the one hand,
and democracy, on the other. Much later, Diamond (1992: 110) commented that the relationship
between affluence and democracy remained ‘one of the most powerful and stable … in the
study of national development’. In an analysis of all democracies existing between 1789 and
 Democratic rule 8

2001, Svolik (2008: 166) concluded that ‘democracies with low levels of economic development ...
are less likely to consolidate’. Boix (2011) agrees, with the qualification that the effect of affluence
on democracy declines once societies have achieved developed status.
Modernization theorists in political science claim that as a society moves from being
immature or “traditional” to being mature or “modern,” it needs to change to a more
appropriate type of government. Dictatorships might be sustainable in immature
societies, but this is no longer the case in mature societies once they develop
economically. Przeworski et al. (2000, 88) summarize modernization theory in the following
way:
As a country develops, its social structure becomes complex, new groups emerge
and organize, labor processes require the active cooperation of employees, and,
as a result, the system can no longer be effectively run by command: The society
is too complex, technological change endows the direct producers with autonomy
and private information, civil society emerges, and dictatorial forms of control lose
their effectiveness. Various groups, whether the bourgeoisie, workers, or just the
amorphous “civil society,” rise against the dictatorial regime, and it falls. In effect,
democracy is “secreted” out of dictatorship by economic development.
Although Przeworski et al. (2000) highlight modernization theory’s claim that countries will
become democratic as they develop economically, Lipset (1959, 75) argues that
modernization theory also implies that democracy will be more likely to survive in
economically developed countries—as he puts it, “the more well-to-do a nation, the
greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.” In sum, classic modernization theory
predicts that economic development will help both (a) the emergence of democracy and
(b) the survival of democracy. (Excerpted from: Clark, W.R., Golder, M. & Golder, S.N. [2013]. Principles of
comparative politics.)
xxx why does liberal democracy seem to be the natural way of governing modern
societies? Lipset (1959) proposed several possible answers:
• Wealth softens the class struggle, producing a more equal distribution of income and
turning the working class away from ‘leftist extremism’, while the presence of a large
middle-class tempers class conflict between rich and poor.
• Economic security raises the quality of governance by reducing incentives for
corruption.
• High-income countries have more interest groups to reinforce liberal democracy.
• Education and urbanization also make a difference. Education inculcates democratic
and tolerant values, while towns have always been the wellspring of democracy.
Lipset’s list, like the relationship between modernity and democracy itself, has stood the
test of time. However, recent contributions offer a more systematic treatment (Boix, 2003).
Vanhanen (1997: 24), for instance, suggests that a relatively equal distribution of power resources
in modern societies prevents a minority from becoming politically dominant:
When the level of economic development rises, various economic resources usually
become more widely distributed and the number of economic interest groups increases.
Thus, the underlying factor behind the positive correlation between the level of economic
development and democracy is the distribution of power resources.
Modernity has been an effective incubator of liberal democracy, but we should be careful
about projecting this relationship forward. Today’s world contains many more liberal
democracies than it did when Lipset was writing in the 1950s, suggesting that democracy can
consolidate at lower, pre-modern levels of development. That threshold may continue to
decrease, delivering a world that is wholly democratic before it becomes wholly modern.
Alternatively, a few authoritarian regimes, such as China, may succeed in creating modern
societies without becoming democracies.
 Democratic rule 9

Waves of democracy. xxx today’s democracies emerged – argues political scientist

Samuel Huntington (1991) – in a series of distinct waves of democratization xxx. (Waves of
democratization: A group of transitions from non-democratic to democratic regimes that occurs within a specified period of time and
that significantly outnumbers transitions in the opposite direction during that period.)
First wave. The earliest representative democracies emerged during the longest of
these waves, between 1828 and 1926. During this first period, nearly 30 countries established
at least minimally democratic national institutions, including Argentina, Australia, Britain,
Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and the
United States. However, some backsliding occurred as fledgling democracies were overthrown
by fascist, communist or military dictatorships during what Huntington describes as the ‘first
reverse wave’ from 1922 to 1942.
A distinctive feature of many first-wave transitions was their slow and sequential
character. Political competition, traditionally operating within a privileged elite, gradually
broadened as the right to vote extended to the wider population. Unhurried transitions lowered
the political temperature; in the first wave, democracy was as much outcome as intention. In
Britain, for example, the expansion of the vote occurred gradually xxx, with each step easing the
fears of the propertied classes about the dangers of further reform.
In the United States, the idea that citizens could only be represented fairly by those of
their own sort gained ground against the founders’ view that the republic should be led by a
leisured, landed gentry. Within 50 years of independence, nearly all white men had the vote
(Wood, 1993: 101), but women were not given the vote on the same terms as men until 1919, and
the franchise for black Americans was not fully realized until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In
that sense, America’s democratic transition was also a prolonged affair.
Second wave. Huntington’s second wave of democratization began during the Second
World War and continued until the 1960s. As with the first wave, some of the new democracies
created at this time did not consolidate; for example, elected rulers in several Latin American
states were quickly overthrown by military coups. But established democracies did emerge after
1945 from the ashes of defeated dictatorships, not just in West Germany, but also in Austria,
Japan, and Italy. These post-war democracies were introduced by the victorious allies,
supported by local partners. The second wave democracies established firm roots, helped by an
economic recovery which was nourished by US aid. During this second wave, democracy also
consolidated in the new state of Israel and the former British dominion of India.
Political parties played a key role in the transition. First-generation democracies had
emerged when parties were seen as a source of faction, rather than progress. But by the time of
the second wave, parties had emerged as the leading instrument of democracy in a mass
electorate. As in many more recent constitutions, Germany’s Basic Law (1949) went so far as to
codify their role: ‘political parties shall take part in forming the democratic will of the people’. In
several cases, though, effective competition was reduced by the emergence of a single party
which dominated government for a generation or more: Congress in India, the Christian
Democrats in Italy, the Liberal Democrats in Japan, and Labour in Israel. Many second-wave
democracies took a generation to mature into fully competitive party systems.
Third wave. This was a product of the final quarter of the twentieth century. Its main and
highly diverse elements were:
• The ending of right-wing dictatorships in Greece, Portugal, and Spain in the 1970s.
• The retreat of the generals in much of Latin America in the 1980s.
• The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at the end of the
1980s.
The third wave transformed the global political landscape, providing an inhospitable
environment for those non-democratic regimes that survive. Even in sub-Saharan Africa,
presidents subjected themselves to re-election (though rarely to defeat). With the end of the
Cold War and the collapse of any realistic alternative to democracy, the European Union and
 Democratic rule 10

the United States also became more encouraging of democratic transitions while still, of course,
keeping a close eye on their own shorter-term interests.
Fourth wave, or a stalling of democracy? While Huntington stopped with three waves, it
is worth extending the logic of his arguments and looking in more detail at what has happened
since 1991. Inspired by the end of the Cold War and the speed of the democratic transition in
Eastern Europe, the political economist Francis Fukuyama was moved in 1989 to borrow from
Hegel, Marx and others in declaring the end of history, or the final triumph of democracy:
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a
particular period of post-war history, but the end of history … That is, the end point of
mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as
the final form of human government. (Fukuyama, 1989)
An attractive thought, to be sure, if we think of liberal democracy in its ideal form. But it
was soon clear that Fukuyama had spoken too soon, and many of today’s political
conversations are not about the health or the spread of democracy but about the difficulties it
faces even within those states we consider to be firmly liberal democratic. Among the concerns:
social disintegration, voter alienation, the tensions between individual rights and democracy,
and the manner in which competitive politics and economics can undermine the sense of
community. In some cases, such as Brazil, France, India, and South Africa, the problems are
sufficiently deep that the Democracy Index classifies them as flawed democracies. The more
specific challenges that democracies face include the following:
• Women have less political power and opportunity than men, do not earn as much as men for
equal work, and are still prevented from rising to positions of political and corporate power as
easily as men.
• Racism and religious intolerance remain critical challenges, with minorities often existing on the
margins of society, and denied equal access to jobs, loans, housing, or education.
• There is a large and sometimes growing income gap between the rich and the poor, and levels
of unemployment and poverty often remain disturbingly high. With both comes reduced political
influence, and sometimes political radicalization.

Opinion polls show declining faith in government and political institutions in many
countries, reflecting less a concern with the concept of democracy than with the manner in
which democracy is practised. Many see government as being dominated by elites, have less
trust in their leaders, feel that government is doing a poor job of dealing with pressing economic
and social problems, and – as a result – are voting in smaller numbers and switching to
alternative forms of political expression and participation. xxx, trust in government has been
falling in most liberal democracies. Despite these concerns, democracy has been stable and
lasting, and no country with a sustained history of liberal democracy has ever freely or
deliberately opted for an alternative form of government. Neither have any liberal democracies
gone to war with one another. The broad goals of the liberal democratic model – including
freedom, choice, security, and wealth – are widely shared, and while the practice of liberal
democracy is rarely clean or simple, as Churchill implied, the system still provides a uniquely
stable and successful formula for achieving these important objectives.

Enhancement Activity 3:
It’s time to evaluate yourself! Complete the table by writing the appropriate entries in each
box guided by the given bases in the first column.

Waves of Inclusive Years Distinctive Features

Democracy

First

Second

Third