# data[].attributes.body
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY ? WHY DEMOCRACY ?

# data[].attributes.body
A simple definition
democracy is form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people.

# data[].attributes.body
FEATURES OF DEMOCRACY

# data[].attributes.body
We have started with a simple definition that democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. This raise many questions:
1) who are the rulers in this definition? Which officio be elected for any government to be called a democracy? Which decisions may be taken by non-elected officials in a democracy?
And etc.

# data[].attributes.body
MAJOR DECISION BY ELECTED LEADERS

# data[].attributes.body
FREE AND FAIR ELECTORAL COMPETITION

# data[].attributes.body
RULE OF LAW AND RESPECT FOR RIGHTS

# data[].attributes.body
WHY DEMOCRACY ? - MERITS AND DEMERITS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democracy is a system of government where the entire population or eligible members of the state have the opportunity to vote on issues directly or send someone that they elect to make those decisions on their behalf. It is a governing structure where rule comes from the people instead of the military or state. Although it is an option that is usually associated with the United States, the Declaration of Independence makes no word of this option.

The founding fathers of the United States actually feared the idea of democratic rule. James Madison mentioned in one of the federalist papers that this form of government could lead to confusion, instability, and injustice. They were scared that a popular government would eventually perish because that was happening more often than not everyone else in the world.

What history does not always remember is that the Roman Empire once had a working democracy during the early years of their existence. You can even visit the Forum still to this day, which is where their meetings and votes were held. Even Vladimir Lenin felt that democracy was the goal of communism, using a dictator to control the proletariat until such a status became possible.

Now many believe that a democracy is the best form of government that is available today because it gives each person the freedom to have a voice. These are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system to consider.

List of the Advantages of Democracy

1. Democracies give people a chance to become personally involved with their government.
Because the government in a democracy is under the control of the people and their voice, then it is up to each individual to decide their fate. People can choose to vote in whatever way their morality dictates. Some even give voters the option to not vote if that is what they feel is the best way to express their opinion.

Every ballot is an opportunity to express one's personal opinion. Whether that voice lands in the majority or not, there is an agreement in a democracy that the tally of the vote stands unless there is a clear moral objection to the outcome. A community won't object over the failure of a tax levy for a swimming pool, but the judicial system might step in if the people vote to accept a local ordinance that allows slavery.

2. A democracy encourages equality in a positive way.
The structure of a democracy gives every vote an equal amount of weight during an election. This option gives each person the chance to cast a ballot without judgment when they register for this process, providing an opinion that despite their social or economic status. Everything "yes" or "no" counts as one, whether you are rich or poor, own land or not, of express your gender in a specific way.

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality," said Alexis de Tocqueville. "But notice the difference; while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

3. The structure of a democracy works to reduce issues with exploitation.
All government formations are sensitive to exploitation because of the people who get elected into powerful positions. The contrast with democracy is that the authorities are distributed more equally within it. The ruling documents in this structure create checks and balances to assure that no single person receives supreme power over the legislative process.

Democracies prevent elected officials from ignoring the needs of the general population to help themselves. It challenges them to represent the needs of each community so that everyone receives an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams.

4. Democracies usually grow faster economically than other forms of government.
The freedom offered in the structures of democracy allows the general population to seek any result they want. Although legal barriers exist to prevent one person from hurting another, this governing structure grants the freedom to look for different employment opportunities, schools, or even places to live. The choice remains with your voice.

You get an opportunity to seek what you are enthusiastic about in this life. The structure of democracy makes it possible for everyone to stay fruitful with their work because they are always employing their strengths. That is why the gross domestic product of a country which features constitutional arrangements is typically larger.

5. There is more consistency available in democracy than other government structures.
There is more unity in the governing process with democracy because the general population holds the right to vote on resolutions. This arrangement can take different styles, but the result is generally the same. Each person gets the chance to express their view at their polling stations by casting a vote. That process allows each community to continue pursuing the specific results that they feel are helpful, or they can switch directions to try something new.

The structure of democracy makes it possible for everyone to come together in a way that forms society in ways that are helpful for virtually all people.

6. Democracy does not create a centralized power base for ruling over the people.
The United States uses a centralized form of governing, but there are equal powers distributed between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Voters have an opportunity to change their elected officials every 2-6 years as a way to control their destiny.

In a direct democracy, every decision would be placed to a vote for a supreme level of control. Either way, there is no centralized power that can dictate what people can or cannot do. Every branch of the government must agree on the process. Then each community can make decisions with their voting power to overturn unwanted rules and regulations to evolve life over time.

7. People identify with their government to create a stronger level of patriotism.
The structures of democracy are unique because they allow everyone to fight for the things that they want in life. Each person can pursue their dreams, working to mold society in a vision that meets their expectations. Even when that idea runs counter to what the majority wants or falls outside of an expected window of morality, there is an ability to express those ideas assuming that others are not hurt by such an effort.

That is why there is more loyalty and patriotism present in democracy. Even when there is disagreement in the community, everyone still has the common ground of their nation to fall back upon when forming their identity. Everyone contributes in their own way, which this governing structure celebrates. Other governments can dictate those choices.

8. Countries who use democracy are less likely to enter into armed conflicts.
As democracy has come through Europe once again, the levels of warfare between the major nations on the continent have decreased significantly. There have been fewer conflicts in the past 50 years than at any other time in history. Although the United States is an exception to this advantage because of the country's status on the global stage, most nations who focus on a democracy avoid battles instead of chasing after them.

That means there are fewer issues with violent rebellion within democratic societies as well. Decisions must route through various legislative bodies or the people, which reduces the pursuit of war on a whim. There are fewer coup attempts within this governing structure as well.

9. A democracy transitions power smoothly while establishing legitimacy.
Democracy creates an appropriate structure of government for every person because voters select who will be in charge or how policies are made if a direct form of governing is in place. This process demands that each candidate for office declare before their voters the reasons why they are the best person to represent each community.

By winning an election, it becomes possible to establish legitimacy for political candidates or referendums that other forms of governing cannot provide. When leaders change in democracy, the checks and balances offered by this format make it possible to produce smooth transitions when power changes hands. There are fewer arguments about who becomes the replacement for any position. This outcome occurs because each job is either directed by the people or filled by someone who won an election.

10. It encourages centrism more than extremism.
Even in this current wave of populism that is happening around the world, the format of democracy encourages people to come to the center more often than it favors the extreme. There are times when a complete majority of a single party can win an election, but even then, there can be enough disagreement within the ranks that compromises must happen. This process makes it possible for voters or their representatives to aggregate the different needs of each community toward a coherent policy that protects the needs of everyone. That ensures that the interests of each segment of society can receive the protection they need while providing a higher level of accountability for the governing actions which occur.

List of the Disadvantages of Democracy

1. Democracy is ineffective unless voters educate themselves on governing decisions.
A democracy allows an individual to cast a vote either directly or through a preferred representative on the issues that the government must manage. There is no direction as to how voters approach this responsibility. Although some people will educate themselves on each issue to offer an experienced opinion, there is no requirement to go through all of this work. Someone can turn in a ballot that is a straight-party ticket with no consideration about the individual views or needs.

President Teddy Roosevelt reportedly once said this: "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."

2. The structure of democracy depends upon the will of the majority.
History has taught us that the will of the majority is not always the ethical or moral position that one should take. We have dealt with issues like slavery, discrimination, and gender inequality in the past because the perspective of the those with the most votes say that society deserves to have those elements. If someone finds themselves outside of the will of the majority more often than not, then it will feel like their vote doesn't really count for something.

"Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights," said Larry Flynt. "Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what they should all be having for supper."

3. Democracy can encourage mob rule.
People are migrating toward neighborhoods, employment opportunities, and even relationships based on how comfortable they are around other people. The prevalence is to have neighbors and friends who have a like-minded perspective because there is a fear present in democracy of being wrong. No one wants to be stuck on the outside looking in when it comes to governing. Some states in the U.S. are even becoming polarized as families keep moving to stay within their comfort zone. Democracies encourage mob thinking because every election becomes an "us vs. them" edict.

"Remember," Will Rogers reportedly warned, "democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

4. The cost of democracy is something that many people don't realize exists.
Democracy is one of the least cost-efficient forms of governing that exists today. The time and currency resources that are necessary to conduct an election can cost billions of dollars. Even a local election for city council, mayor, or a school board can cost six figures. The Presidential elections every four years in the United States are measured in the billions. Although it is useful to have the people to have power in their voice, their taxes are what are used to create that opportunity.

"Democracy is the worst form of government," warned Winston Churchill, "except for all of the others."

5. Democracy requires more time to implement changes.
Centralized government structures can make declarations on rules, regulations, or responses that are not always possible in a democratic structure. Voting requires time to review the information provided by each election. That means processes slow down to the point where it can take several years to create significant changes. There may only be 1-2 legislative bills that come through in an entire session that go beyond the typical budgets, committees, and nominations that officials manage.

It even takes more time at the local level to make decisions with democracy because each referendum must go to the voters. Every decision is up for review potentially. That means there is always a certain level of uncertainty.

6. The structure of a democracy is a person-first process.
Elections usually involve the opinions or thoughts of each person based on what individuals want for themselves. Instead of looking at what might be useful for the rest of society, most voters gauge what they put on their ballot based on what affects their checking account, taxes, or overall cost of living. It is a process which encourages everyone to put their needs before others.

When people are voting based on personal interests, then it creates discontent in society because it feels like the majority tries to suppress the minority. That is why there must be an emphasis on protecting the rights of those who find themselves on the outside.

7. There is still the risk of creating a conflict of interest within the government.
Most people work to retain what they have after it is earned. That is why families keep making mortgage or rental payments, managers continue to reinforce their expertise, and politicians do their best to stay in power. Democracies put structures into place to limit the impact of one person on the overall society, but it was not always that way.

Franklin D. Roosevelt served in office from March 1933 to April 1945. He served as the 32nd President won a record four Presidential elections, becoming a central figure in the events that shaped the world during that time. His New Deal program was a direct response to the Great Depression. Now an amendment limits the number of terms that the executive branch can serve.

8. Democratic governments follow the "a chicken in every pot" system.
Democracy does not require the same level of accountability if it is established in representative form. The goal of a politician is to receive the most votes. Once that person gets into office, there are fewer controls in place to recall that person if they do not accurately represent what their community wants. The only method to stop this in some countries is to vote in a different person during the next election.

Empty promises are common in direct democracies as well. When there is an incentive to offer everything without the requirement to fulfill your word, then you'll see more lies than truth in the daily conversations about governing that occur.

9. Gridlock occurs frequently in democratic structures.
There is no incentive for people to work together when another election can change the outcome in the future. The United States encountered this disadvantage when a Supreme Court opening occurred during the final year of President Obama's term in office. Republicans in Congress refused to even hold hearings with his nominee because of the upcoming election, which President Trump eventually won.

When there is no incentive to work together, then partisan politics become the conversation of government. It is especially bad in two-party systems, but this disadvantage is present in all democracies as well.

10. It can require individual voters to accept an entire mandate for a single issue.
Conservatives in the United States would argue that it is challenging to vote for the average Democrat because of their views on abortion. Liberals would make the same point when discussing LGBTQIA+ rights. Unless there is a direct democracy structure in place, voters must accept an entire manifesto to vote on the issues which are critical to their needs. Instead of having a candidate who truly represents them, they must pick the platform which is the closest to their stance.

Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Democracy

"The right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system," said Ayn Rand, "and its value depends on the constitutional structure implementing and strictly delimiting the voters' power; unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny."

That is the danger of democracy. When the majority can pull the strings of society without there being legislation in place to protect the rights of the minority, then it creates a severe risk of oppression. We must remember that some classes of people in the U.S. have only had the right to vote for less than a century - including women.

The advantages and disadvantages of democracy are essential to review because any governing structure can be abused under the right set of circumstances. We must ensure that enough checks and balances exist in this system to protect everyone instead of an elite class that can control everything. If power moves away from the people to only a privileged few, then it is only a handful of steps away from a dictatorship.

About the Blog Post Author
Natalie Regoli is a seasoned writer, who is also our editor-in-chief. If you have any questions about the content of this blog post, then please send our editor-in-chief a message here.

---

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 Advantages and Disadvantages of Democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democracy is a system of government where the entire population or eligible members of the state have the opportunity to vote on issues directly or send someone that they elect to make those decisions on their behalf. It is a governing structure where rule comes from the people instead of the military or state.

# data[].attributes.body
Zimbabwe attained independence from minority rule in 1980. Since then the country has been ruled by ZANU-PF, the party that led the freedom struggle. It's leader, Robert Mugabe, ruled the country since independence. Elections were held regularly and always won by ZANU-PF president mugabe was popular but also use and fair practices in election

# data[].attributes.body
ARGUMENTS FOR DEMOCRACY

China's famine of 1958-1961 was the worst recorded famine in world history. Nearly three crore people died in this famine. During those days India's economic contrition was not much better than China. Yet India did not have have a famine of the kind of China had.

# data[].attributes.body
Some example bring out one of the reason why democracy is considered the best form of government.

1. Democratic government is a better government because it is a more accountable form of government.

2. Democracy improves the quality of decision making.

3. Democracy provides a method to deal with differences and conflict.

4. Democracy enhances the dignity of the citizen's.

5.Democracy is better than other forms of government because it allow us to correct it's own mistakes.

# data[].attributes.body
ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, ONE VALUE.
Earlier, we read about how the struggle for democracy was linked to the demand for universal adult franchise.
And etc.
# until 2015, in Saudi Arabia women did not have the right to vote.

# data[].attributes.body
SUMMRY DEFINITION
democracy is form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people.
According, democracy is a form of government in which

Rulers elected by the people take all the major decisions

Elections offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current rulers

This choice and opportunity is available to all people on an equal basis.

The exercise of the choice leads to a government limited by basic rulers of the constitution and citizen's right.

# data[].attributes.body
Get do not allow us to see the operation of democracy beyond government for this we need to turn to broader meaning of democracy.
Sometimes we use democracy for organization other than the government. Just read these statements

We are very Democratic family whenever a decision has to be taken we all sit down and arrive at a consensus. My opinion matters as much as my father's

"i don't like teachers who do not allow students to speak and ask questions in the class. I would like to have teachers with Democratic temperament."

" one leader and his family members decide everything in this party. How can they talk of democracy. "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Alain Touraine

Democracy these days is more commonly defined in negative terms, as freedom from arbitrary actions, the personality cult or the rule of a nomenklatura, than by reference to what it can achieve or the social forces behind it. What are we celebrating today? The downfall of authoritarian regimes or the triumph of democracy? And we think back and remember that popular movements which over threw anciens régimes have given rise to totalitarian regimes practising state terrorism.

So we are initially attracted to a modest, purely liberal concept of democracy, defined negatively as a regime in which power cannot be taken or held against the will of the majority. Is it not enough of an achievement to rid the planet of all regimes not based on the free choice of government by the governed? Is this cautious concept not also the most valid, since it runs counter both to absolute power based on tradition and divine right, and also to the voluntarism that appeals to the people's interests and rights and then, in the name of its liberation and independence, imposes on it military or ideological mobilization leading to the repression of all forms of opposition?

This negative concept of democracy and freedom, expounded notably by Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper, is convincing because the main thing today is to free individuals and groups from the stifling control of a governing élite speaking on behalf of the people and the nation. It is now impossible to defend an antiliberal concept of democracy, and there is no longer any doubt that the so-called "people's democracies" were dictatorships imposed on peoples by political leaders relying on foreign armies. Democracy is a matter of the free choice of government, not the pursuit of "popular" policies.

In the light of these truths, which recent events have made self-evident, the following question must be asked. Freedom of political choice is a prerequisite of democracy, but is it the only one? Is democracy merely a matter of procedure? In other words, can it be defined without reference to its ends, that is to the relationships it creates between individuals and groups? At a time when so many authoritarian regimes are collapsing, we also need to examine the content of democracy although the most urgent task is to bear in mind that democracy cannot exist without freedom of political choice.

The collapse of the revolutionary illusion

Revolutions sweep away an old order: they do not create democracy. We have now emerged from the era of revolutions, because the world is no longer dominated by tradition and religion, and because order has been largely replaced by movement. We suffer more from the evils of modernity than from those of tradition. Liberation from the past interests us less and less; we are more and more concerned about the growing totalitarian power of the new modernizers. The worst disasters and the greatest injury to human rights now stem not from conservative despotism but from modernizing totalitarianism.

We used to think that social and national revolutions were necessary prerequisites for the birth of new democracies, which would be social and cultural as well as political. This idea has become unacceptable. The end of our century is dominated by the collapse of the revolutionary illusion, both in the late capitalist countries and in the former colonies.

But if revolutions move in a direction diametrically opposed to that of democracy, this does not mean that democracy and liberalism necessarily go together. Democracy is as far removed from liberalism as it is from revolution, for both liberal and revolutionary regimes, despite their differences, have one principle in common: they both justify political action because it is consistent with natural logic.

Revolutionaries want to free social and national energies from the shackles of the capitalist profit motive and of colonial rule. Liberals call for the rational pursuit of interests and satisfaction of needs. The parallel goes even further. Revolutionary regimes subject the people to "scientific" decisions by avant-garde intellectuals, while liberal regimes subject it to the power of entrepreneurs and of the "enlightened" classes the only ones capable of rational behaviour, as the French statesman Guizot thought in the nineteenth century.

But there is a crucial difference between these two types of regime. The revolutionary approach leads to the establishment of an all-powerful central authority controlling all aspects of social life. The liberal approach, on the other hand, hastens the functional differentiation of the various areas of life politics, religion, economics, private life and art. This reduces rigidity and allows social and political conflict to develop which soon restricts the power of the economic giants.

But the weakness of the liberal approach is that by yoking together economic modernization and political liberalism it restricts democracy to the richest, most advanced and best-educated nations. In other words, elitism in the international sphere parallels social elitism in the national sphere. This tends to give a governing elite of middle-class adult men in Europe and America enormous power over the rest of the world over women, children and workers at home, as well as over colonies or dependent territories.

One effect of the expanding power of the world's economic centres is to propagate the spirit of free enterprise, commercial consumption and political freedom. Another is a growing split within the world's population between the central and the peripheral sectors the latter being not that of the subject peoples but of outcasts and marginals. Capital, resources, people and ideas migrate from the periphery and find better employment in the central sector.

The liberal system does not automatically, or naturally, become democratic as a result of redistribution of wealth and a constantly rising standard of general social participation. Instead, it works like a steam engine, by virtue of a big difference in potential between a hot pole and a cold pole. While the idea of class war, often disregarded nowadays, no longer applies to post-revolutionary societies, it still holds good as a description of aspects of liberal society that are so basic that the latter cannot be equated with democracy.

The twilight of social democracy

This analysis is in apparent contradiction with the fact that social democracy developed in the most capitalist countries, where there was a considerable redistribution of income as a result of intervention by the state, which appropriated almost half the national income and in some cases, especially in the Scandinavian countries, even more.

The main strength of the social democratic idea stems from the link it has forged between democracy and social conflict, which makes the working-class movement the main drivingforce in building a democracy, both social and political. This shows that there can be no democracy unless the greatest number subscribes to the central principles of a society and culture but also no democracy without fundamental social conflicts.

What distinguishes the democratic position from both the revolutionary and the liberal position is that it combines these two principles. But the social democratic variant of these principles is now growing weaker, partly because the central societies are emerging from industrial society and entering post-industrial society or a society without a dominant model, and partly because we are now witnessing the triumph of the international market and the weakening of state intervention, even in Europe.

So Swedish social democracy, and most parties modelled on social democracy, arc anxiously wondering what can survive of the policies constructed in the middle of the century. In some countries the trade union movement has lost much of its strength and many of its members. This is particularly true in France, the United States and Spain, but also in the United Kingdom to say nothing of the excommunist countries, where trade unions long ago ceased to be an independent social force. In nearly all countries trade unionism is moving out of the industrial workplace and turning into neocorporatism, a mechanism for protecting particular professional interests within the machinery of the state: and this leads to a backlash in the form of wild-cat strikes and the spread of parallel ad hoc organizations.

So we come to the most topical question about democracy: if it presupposes both participation and conflict, but if its social-democratic version is played out, what place does it occupy today? What is the specific nature of democratic action, and what is the "positive" content of democracy? In answering these questions we must first reject any single principle: we must equate human freedom neither with the universalism of pragmatic reason (and hence of interest) nor with the culture of a community. Democracy can neither be solely liberal nor completely popular.

Unlike revolutionary historicism and liberal utilitarianism, democratic thinking today starts from the overt and insurmountable conflict between the two faces of modern society. On the one hand is the liberal face of a continually changing society, whose efficiency is based on the maximization of trade, and on the circulation of money, power, and information. On the other is the opposing image, that of a human being who resists market forces by appealing to subjectivity the latter meaning both a desire for individual freedom and also a response to tradition, to a collective memory. A society free to arbitrate between these two conflicting demands that of the free market and that of individual and collective humanity, that of money and that of identity may be termed democratic.

The main difference as compared with the previous stage, that of social democracy and the industrial society, is that the terms used are much further apart than before. We are now concerned not with employers and wage-earners, associated in a working relationship, but with subjectivity and the circulation of symbolic goods.

These terms may seem abstract, but they are no more so than employers and wage-earners. They denote everyday experiences for most people in the central societies, who are aware that they live in a consumer society at the same time as in a subjective world. But it is true that these conflicting facets of people's lives have not so far found organized political expression just as it took almost a century for the political categories inherited from the French Revolution to be superseded by the class categories specific to industrial society. It is this political time-lag that so often compels us to make do with a negative definition of democracy.

Arbitration

Democracy is neither purely participatory nor purely liberal. It above all entails arbitrating, and this implies recognition of a central conflict between tendencies as dissimilar as investment and participation, or communication and subjectivity. This concept can be adapted to the most affluent post-industrializing countries and to those which dominate the world system; but does it also apply to the rest of the world, to the great majority of the planet?

A negative reply would almost completely invalidate the foregoing argument. But in Third World countries today arbitration must first and foremost find a way between exposure to world markets (essential because it determines competitiveness) and the protection of a personal and collective identity from being devalued or becoming an arbitrary ideological construct.

Let us take the example of the Latin American countries, most of which fall into the category of intermediate countries. They are fighting hard and often successfully to regain and then increase the share of world trade they once possessed. They participate in mass culture through consumer goods, television programmes, production techniques and educational programmes. But at the same time they are reacting against a crippling absorption into the world economic, political and cultural system which is making them increasingly dependent. They are trying to be both universalist and particularist, both modern and faithful to their history and culture.

Unless politics manages to organize arbitration between modernity and identity, it cannot fulfil the first prerequisite of democracy, namely to be representative. The result is a dangerous rift between grass-roots movements seeking to defend the individuality of communities, and political parties, which are no more than coalitions formed to achieve power by supporting a candidate.

The main difference between the central countries and the peripheral ones is that in the former a person is defined primarily in terms of personal freedom, but also as a consumer, whereas in the latter the defence of collective identity may still be more important, to the extent that there is pressure from abroad to impose some kind of bloodless revolution in the form of compulsory modernization on the pattern of other countries.

This conception of democracy as a process of arbitration between conflicting components of social life involves something more than the idea of majority government. It implies above all recognition of one component by another, and of each component by all the others, and hence an awareness both of the similarities and the differences between them. It is this that most sharply distinguishes the "arbitral" concept from the popular or revolutionary view of democracy, which so often carries with it the idea of eliminating minorities or categories opposed to what is seen as progress.

In many parts of the world today there is open warfare between a kind of economic modernization which disrupts the fabric of society, and attachment to beliefs. Democracy cannot exist so long as modernization and identity are regarded as contradictory in this way. Democracy rests not only on a balance or compromise between different forces, but also on their partial integration. Those for whom progress means making a clean sweep of the past and of tradition are just as much the enemies of democracy as those who see modernization as the work of the devil. A society can only be democratic if it recognizes both its unity and its internal conflicts.

Hence the crucial importance, in a democratic society, of the law and the idea of justice, defined as the greatest possible degree of compatibility between the interests involved. The prime criterion of justice is the greatest possible freedom for the greatest possible number of actors. The aim of a democratic society is to produce and to. respect the greatest possible amount of diversity, with the participation of the greatest possible number in the institutions and products of the community.

Read Also:
Alain Touraine in the UNESCO Courier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Alain Touraine Democracy these days is more commonly defined in negative terms, as freedom from arbitrary actions, the personality cult or the rule of a nomenklatura, than by reference to what it can achieve or the social forces behind it. What are we celebrating today?

# data[].attributes.body
In the country we call democracy all the people do not rule a majority is allowed to take decision on behalf of all the people even the majority do not rule directly the majority of people rule through their elected representatives.

Modern Democratic involves such a large number of people that it is physically impossible for them to sit together and take a collective decision.

Even if they could, the citizen does not have the time the desire or the skills to take part in all the decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
This is what distinguish democracy from other government to other form of Government like monarchy dictatorship and one party rule do not require a citizen to take part in the politics non democratic government would like citizen not take part in politics but damn kar City point on Active political participation by all station that is why a study focus on democratic politics

# data[].attributes.body
If we take this ideal seriously then no country in the world in a democracy yet and understanding of democracy as an ideal remind us of why we value democracy it enable us to judge and existing democracy at identify its weakness it helps us to distinguish between a minimal democracy and a good democracy in this book we don't deal much with this expanded notation notion of democracy our focus hair is with some core institutional feature of democracy as a form of Government.

# data[].attributes.body
Overview
What is democracy? What are it's features? This chapter builds on a simple definition of democracy.

# data[].attributes.body
"THANKS FOR WATCHING"