F - Edited TasneemSultana

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/328576959
The Evolution of Democracy through the Ages: Focus on the European

Experience
Article · January 2012
CITATION READS
1 15,268
1 author:
Tasneem Sultana
University of Karachi
28 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Research Article for Journal of European Studies View project
International Seminar View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Tasneem Sultana on 29 October 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of European Studies
The Evolution of Democracy through the Ages:

Focus on the European Experience
Tasneem Sultana
The word ‘democracy’ is derived from two ancient Greek words:

demos (the people) and Kratos (strength). In simple terms,
democracy means that, political power is ultimately in the hands of
the whole adult population, and that no similar group has the right
to rule.1 In the light of the above we can say that democracy
means `rule of the people’. Another succinct definition of
democracy is that which Abraham Lincoln gave at Gettysburg, pa.,
in 1863: “government of the people, by the people and for the
people”.2 In modern political systems, the term democracy is
usually taken to mean universal suffrage, free elections and
governance with the consent of the governed.3 In short, democracy
is a form of government in which the people, either directly or
indirectly, take part in governing. However, the term is sometimes
also used as a measurement of how much influence people have
over their government, or how much freedom exists.4 As is
generally known, democracy means rule by the people, and it can
refer to direct, participatory, and representative forms of rule by
the people. Today, the term has a worldwide connotation, so much
so that political systems that have very little or even no
participation by the people, are also called democratic.5 In 1877 an
American scholar describing the ideal society wrote: “Democracy
1
David Robortson, A Dictionary of Modern Politics (London: Europa
Publications, 1985), 302-3.
2
Colliers Encyclopedia, no.8 (New York: Macmillan Educational Company,
1986), 75.
3
Barrie Axford, Gary K. Browning, Richard Huggins and Ben Rosemond,
Politics: An Introduction, IInd edition (London and New York: Routledge,
2002), 159.
4
Visit at http://www.political_information.net/encyclopedia/democracy.htm.
5
Lyman Tower Sargent, Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative
Analysis, 8th edition (California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1990), 37.
27
in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and

privileges, and universal education, foreshadow the most higher
plane of society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge
are steadily tending”.6 Therefore Democracy is a system in which
political power is transferred through elections held at regular
intervals, and people choose their representatives from two or more
parties in elections.
Democracy has many aspects, e.g. political, economic and social,

but it has been proved that if political democracy is practiced for a
long time it also leads to social and economic democracy.7 John
Dunn has defined democracy as a word, an idea, and has pointed
out that there are several manifest and latent practices associated
with that idea and word.8 He also opines that democracy is not
only associated with liberalism and freedom but with human rights
and economic prosperity.9 Georg Sorensen also points out that if
one wants to gauge the success or failure of democracy in a
country, he/she must look into its economic, social and
institutional conditions.10
Robert Dahl presented a comprehensive list of criteria for a

successful democracy. These criteria are institutional guarantees
for the sustenance of democracy: effective participation of people;
voting equality; an enlightened electorate; and inclusion of all
adults.11
The fulfillment of these criteria ensures the development of stable

democratic institutions: representative government that is
6
Quoted in John Major, The Contemporary World: A Historical Introduction
(London: Methven Educational Ltd. 1970), 25-26.
7
Ibid.
8
John Dunn, Democracy (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005), 16-20.
9
Ibid, 24.
10
Sorensen, Democracy and Democratization (Aarhus: Westview Press, 2008),
3.
11
Robert Dahl, On Democracy (New York: Yale University Press, 1998), 37.
28
responsible for the elected officials; free, fair and frequent

elections, freedom of expression; access for citizens to alternative
sources of information; associational autonomy and inclusive
citizenship.12 Furthermore, according to Dahl, the full
participation of citizens requires that they understand public
matters, which can be promoted by an effective schooling system,
public debate and discussion. Dahl opines that this is not a part of
the definition of democracy, but a requirement for the better
functioning of democracy.13
In western democratic norms, besides free and fair elections,

emphasis is placed on freedom of press; equality before the law;
freedom of speech and assembly; the right to choose one’s job,
and, above all, the right to oppose the government.14 The western
concept of democracy assumes that the people are the best judges
of their interests, and must therefore be given freedom to express
their views.15
On the other hand, in the Marxist concept of democracy, it is

assumed that only those who know the truth – in practice, the small
ruling elite of the communist party have the right to decide what is
best for the people.16
The communists call the essentials of western democracy, i.e

freedom of speech, press, and association, equality before the law,
and all the other fundamental civil liberties - `formal’ democracy
as compared with the `real’ democracy of communism, in which
the means of production are owned by the state.17 According to
Marx, ‘the essence of every political consultation is democracy’; it
is the ‘old testament’ in relation to other political forms and it
12
Ibid, 85-86.
13
Ibid, 78.
14
Colliers Encyclopedia.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid, 76.
29
stands as the genus to the species.18 According to Marx,

Democracy does not only mean the people’s participation in
decision making on governmental issues but also participation in
day to day affairs like workplace issues and leisure activities etc.19
The Islamic concept of democracy is quiet similar to that of

western democracy. The values and practices central to western
democracy can be gleaned in many of the Quranic revelations.
Islam is a comprehensive code of life. Government in an Islamic
polity is led by leaders with credibility. In Islam, leadership shuns
self-aggrandizement and perpetuation of power. Leaders are
elected to govern on the community’s behalf. The system of
elections, the first prerequisite of western democracy is also
compatible with Islamic principles. The Quran insists on Shura, or
mutual consultation in deciding the affairs of the community. Thus
while the Islamic system appears compatible with the western
notion of representative democracy, there is a significant
difference: Islam calls for mutual consultation, but not with the
general public. The Shura is supposed to comprise a group of
persons who are knowledgeable about the affairs of the
community, are educated, well-versed in the Quran and the
Sunnah, are wise, sincere and honest, and know what is in the
interest of the common man.
Just as accountability of leaders is an essential principle of western

democracy, Islam too provides a precise system through which
leaders are held accountable to the people. The Quran clearly
enjoins that leaders must govern with consensus, and not on their
personal whims and desires. As pointed out above, their policies
and actions must be in accordance with the teachings of the Quran
and the Sunnah (An-Nisa’a 4:59).
18
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right’, edited by J. O’Malley
(Cambridge University Press, 1970), 30.
19
Geriant Parry and Michael Moran (eds.), Democracy and Democratization
(London & New York: Routledge, 1994), 4.
30
The other two salient features of a democratic polity, namely

equality and freedom are also equally important in Islam. The
Quran clearly says: “O humankind, we created you from a male
and a female and we made you races and tribes for you to get to
know each other” (Al-Hujrat 49:13). The notion of free will
necessitates freedom. The Quran encourages the formation and
mobilization of social and political groups. But this freedom,
unlike in western liberalism, is not without certain moral, ethical
and spiritual restrictions.
While Islam insists on the ultimate sovereignty of Allah, in

keeping with the underlying spirit of the concept of oneness of
Allah (Towheed), the religion rejects the notion of a priestly class
or clergy, who claim to be representatives of Allah on earth. No
particular individual or group of persons can claim for themselves
to be representatives of the Almighty on earth.
The history and heritage of the Muslims upto the times of the four
pious caliphs may be broadly called ‘Islamic’ and the periods that
followed are ‘Muslim’ and not ‘Islamic’. The institution of
hereditary kingship, that developed in the post-caliphate period
was, in spirit and form, entirely un-Islamic. The Islamic concept of
leadership is not hereditary, but qualitative and selective (elective
as well), and one man rule is completely alien to the Islamic ethos.
Thus for the discourse on Islam-democracy interface or even
Islamic democracy, the period that spans governance by the Holy
Prophet (PBUH) through the four pious caliphs may be relevant,
but not the one called the Muslim period.
Democracy has become the most widely accepted political system

of modern times. Though democracy as practiced in its birth place,
i.e. the Greek city-states meant the direct rule of the people
qualified to vote, there is no such form of direct popular rule or
31
direct universal suffrage anywhere in the world, except in

Switzerland.*
Virtually every country in the world proclaims itself to be a

democracy. Most military regimes that forcefully seize power also
claim that they are working to restore true democracy. Civilian, but
undemocratic regimes, also pretend that their aim is to establish
some higher or more real form of democracy, presenting strange
formulations such as ‘guided democracy’, ‘people’s democracy’ or
the ‘people’s democratic dictatorship’.20
The ancient Greeks, the inventors of democracy, described it as

one amongst several political systems, whilst it was regarded by
Plato and Aristole, the greatest political philosophers of all times,
as a deviant phenomenon, an aberration from the standard of good
government with which popular self government was not to be
equated.21 The Greeks did not present any guidelines about how to
build a democratic state or a democratic system.22
The broad meaning of democracy in modern times is

representative government, which is different from the democracy
of ancient Greece. Democracy evolved in later ages and the
process of evolution is still continuing. No state in modern times
has been able to emulate the institutions of Greek democracy, i.e.
*
Direct Democracy has a long tradition in Switzerland. Its practice began since
the founding of the old Swiss confederacy in 1291. Citizen’s law making right
is exercised at all levels – municipal, state and federal. However, besides
being a direct democracy, Switzerland is also a representative democracy.
Most laws are made and decided by parliament; but citizens are entitled to put
almost every law decided by their representatives to a general vote – if they
want. Thus referendums are frequently held in Switzerland.
20
Ibid, 2; R. Hanson, ‘Democracy’, in T. Ball, J. Ferr and R. Hanson (eds.),
Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge University Press,
1989), 68.
21
Geriant Parry, Democracy and Democratization, 2.
22
G. Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited (Chatham: Chatham House,
1987), 279.
32
the popular law courts, the rotating council of five hundred, the
outdoor assembly of adult male population, owing to the logistical
and practical issues involved. Thus in the modern state, democracy
stands for popular government,23 and a political system is
democratic, if the entire adult population have the opportunity to
indirectly participate in decision-making and enjoy legal, political
and civil protection of their individual rights and freedoms.24
Types of Democracies
In modern times, democracy seems to have triumphed. Most
countries today either are, or pretend to be democracies. Their
political systems may vary, but they all claim that these are based
on popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty means that final
authority in the state belongs to the people who are citizens of that
state. Political freedom and democracy are inseparable ideas.25
In its most pristine form, a democracy would be run through

meetings in which every adult citizen would participate. After
debate and discussion, consensus would be reached and the people
would make the laws, decide on government policies and judge
every dispute that arose in the community.
The different types of democracy are discussed below:
Representative democracy
It is a form of democracy in which citizens elect their political
representatives through periodic, popular elections, who then
represent the people in the government at national (e.g. in a
parliament) or local (e.g. in a local authority or city council) level.
In this form of democracy the people have no direct power and the
‘real’ political power is confined to the elected political
representatives and the unelected ruling elites known as the
23
24
Barrie Axford, Politics: An Introduction, 167.
25
Nathaniel Harris, Democracy (London: Hodder Wayland, 2001), 4.
33
bureaucracy. While the broad policies are made by the elected

representatives, the implementation of these policies on ground is
done by the bureaucracy. In representative democracy, people’s
participation is measured in terms of individual freedoms, civil
liberties and political rights including the freedom of conscience,
association, movement, speech and information, as well as voting
rights.26
In a representative system, citizens’ involvement helps ensure that

public officials are responsive to the needs of the people and that
they work for the general good. They have to convince their
constituencies as well as their party that they can deliver if re-
elected.27 Here, the example of the US system is relevant. In the
US, mid term elections are held and the people, who have critically
observed each move of government vote for or against the
government of the day.
If citizens are fully involved in a democratic system they feel a

sense of responsibility and of belonging, but, a noteworthy trend in
many developing countries is that there is a low voter turn out in
elections. Here the question arises: how does democracy fare if
people lose interest in voting or just vote, and then choose not to
participate further.28
Deliberative Democracy
It is a form of democracy which stresses the participation of the
people in collective decision-making through a process of rational
and considered deliberation.29
Deliberative democracy, in simplest terms `refers to a conception

of democratic government that secures a central place for reasoned
26
Barrie Axford, Politics: An Introduction, 164.
27
Lyman Tower Sargent, Contemporary Political Ideologies, 28.
28
Ibid, 39.
29
Ibid, 164.
34
discussion in political life’.30 This way of thinking about

democracy has led to experiments in local and national
government e.g. the use of citizens’ panels and juries and local
referenda on community issues.31
Those believing in deliberative democracy contend that laws and

policies should be based upon principles and reasoning that all
citizens can accept. The political arena should be one in which
leaders and citizens argue, listen, and change their minds.32
Direct Democracy
In this form of democracy the right to make political decisions
rests in the entire body of citizens, unmediated by political
organizations such as parties. The examples of direct democracy
can be found in Greece of the fifth century B.C and contemporary
Switzerland.
In Athens, a Greek city state, all citizens (not slaves or plebeians

i.e farmers, labourers etc), numbering around ten thousand were
entitled to attend and vote in the general assembly and were
eligible for a wide variety of judicial and administrative posts.
Direct democracy still survives where political units are small
enough to permit town meetings such as in the smaller towns in the
US – Connecticut and Rhode Island.
In modern times, some states have combined representative

democracy with a measure of direct democracy, in that they refer
certain matters to the vote of the citizens as whole by means of
30
Ibid; M. Cooke, “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy”, Political
Studies 48, no.5 (2000): 947.
31
Ibid, 165; G. Smith, and C. Wales, “Citizen’s Juries and Deliberative
Democracy”, Political Studies 48, no.1 (2000): 51-65.
32
Visit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy.
35
referendum. Thus direct democracy can be practiced in the form of

referendums.33
Direct democracy has only rarely been practiced as a means of

governing a country, but citizens are often involved at the lower
level. Citizens’ involvement includes activities such as sitting on a
panel of jury, participation in a political party or interest group,
participation in public hearings or political meetings. Even the
simple act of discussing politics or writing to a public official is
considered as a form of citizens’ involvement or citizen
participation.34
Thus in direct democracy, citizens’ involvement or participation is

personal but in a representative democracy it is through people
chosen by them, to speak for them.35
Liberal Democracy
Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where
the political power of the government is tempered by a constitution
which protects the rights and freedoms of individuals and
minorities. A constitution therefore places constraints on the extent
to which the will of the majority can be exercised. Democracies
sans protection of minority rights are now often called illiberal
democracies.36 Liberal democracy is sometimes, de facto; for
example, the head of state of Canada is the British monarch, but in
fact the country is ruled by a democratically elected parliament. In
the United Kingdom, the sovereign is the hereditary monarch, but
the de facto sovereigns are the people, via their elected
representatives in parliament.37
33
Vernon Bogdanor, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Institutions
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1998), 177.
34
Lyman Tower Sargent, Contemporary Political Ideologies, 38.
35
Ibid.
36
Visit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy.
37
Ibid.
36
Illiberal Democracy
It is a political system where democratic elections exist, and the
government is elected by a majority; however the elected
government is not constrained from encroaching on the liberty of
individuals, or minorities. Some critics of illiberal regimes now
suggest that the rule of law should take precedence over
democracy, implying a de facto western acceptance of what are
called “liberalized autocracies”.38
Social Democracy
It is a label used to indicate a reformist and non-Marxist left-of-
centre party. Many social democratic parties in the world are
inspired by socialism who, for ideological or pragmatic reasons,
opted for a strategy of gradual change through existing institutions.
Social democratic parties may also work for liberal reforms prior
to introducing more profound social change. Social democrats
reject sudden revolutionary change. A social democratic party is
likely to favour higher proportional direct taxation for a more
equitable distribution of wealth and a social net for the weak and
the vulnerable.
The British Labour Party, the German Socialist Party (SPD), the
French Parti Socialiste, are all social democrat parties.39 There are
more such parties all over Western and Nordic Europe.
Participatory Democracy
It is an alternative label for direct democracy. However, it does
have a slightly wider connotation, because participation need not
necessarily mean ultimate decision-making power. Thus if there is
a much greater degree of citizens’ participation in a political
system, though the ultimate decision making and law making
38
Ibid.
39
David Robertson, A Dictionary of Modern Politics (London: Europa
Publications, 1985), 302-3.
37
functions are given to a small body of elected representatives, it is

known as participatory democracy.40
Guided Democracy
It is also called Directed Democracy. It is a term sometimes used
to justify the absence of anything remotely resembling western
Representative Democracy in developing countries. The term was
coined by Pakistan’s President Ayub Khan in 1960s, and a
philosophy was developed to uphold it. The concept rests
fundamentally on the argument that the people in a newly-
independent Third World country cannot be allowed full
participation in the electoral process, for they are in no position to
make rational political choices. The spectre of illiterate masses
being led astray by reactionary, revolutionary or anti-state
elements is often raised by dictators to keep a firm hold over
governance and avoid universal suffrage. Ayub Khan introduced
the system of basic democracy in Pakistan to prop up his
authoritarian rule. In most guided democracies the declared
intention is, that as barriers to rational participation diminish and
economic conditions improve, the people will be eventually
directed into representative democracy that can function
effectively.41
Christian Democracy
This refers to a European political movement, which surfaced after
the Second World War; examples are the Christian Democrat
parties of Italy, Germany and the Fourth French Republic.
Christian Democrat parties stand for moderate social liberalization,
a mixed economy, basic social welfare provisions, and some
degree of commitment to full employment through ‘Keynesian’
economic policies.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid, 89.
38
Catholic opposition to the rise of communist parties in Europe,

inspired the “Christian” label. The word `Democracy’ serves to
identify the parties as being dedicated to the general interest of the
people rather than the aristocrats and elites.42
Origins and evolution of democracy

In ancient times, societies were ruled by individuals with wealth,
physical strength or power but even in those times, these persons
had to work for the well-being of those they ruled. Also, these
rulers most of the time, governed within the paradigms of their
traditions, societal norms and laws. They also consulted the
powerful members of society on some matters. Gradually, those
with whom consultation became customary evolved into councils,
estates and parliaments. The idea of consensus-seeking then
broadened to include the masses, and this is how democracy came
into being.
The birthplace of democracy was ancient Greece, particularly

Athens. In the Greek city-state, democratic self-government was
direct, the people in assembly discussed and voted on major public
issues. There were no parliaments, no cabinets and no civil
servants. Officials were selected by lot, but slaves and women
were excluded from the vote.43
Not all the Greek city-states were democratic. Plato condemned

democracy. He was of the view that people had neither the moral
nor the intellectual capacity to participate in governance. Plato
proposed that government be entrusted to a small elite of highly
trained men, the philosopher-kings, who were of superior moral
fiber and intellectual capacities.44
Aristotle, though he was more sympathetic towards Democracy

than Plato, believed it to be a corrupt form of government.
42
Ibid, 34.
43
Colliers Encyclopedia, 80.
44
Ibid.
39
Although he felt that persons of education and wealth should have

considerable influence in public affairs, he also held the view that
the principle of numbers must be recognized if government was to
be based on consent. Moreover, Aristotle stressed the rule of law,
as opposed to the rule of men, which is why he is considered one
of the founders of the western tradition of constitutional
government, basic to both autocratic and democratic societies.45
Despite the great achievements of the Athenian city-state, the idea

of democracy was not widely praised in the Ancient World. Athens
(which was head of the Delian League of democratic city-states)
was defeated by an oligarchic league, led by Sparta in 404 BC and
after some time all the city-states whether democracies or
oligarchies were incorporated into the new empire of Rome.46
The Romans, drawing inspiration from the Greek civilization, set

up their first assembly named Comitia Curiata. It was the first step
towards a democratic polity. Different tribes were represented in
the assembly and they elected the magistrates.
As Rome expanded and became more populous, the Romans

reorganized their assembly and named it Comitia Centuriata. This
assembly was larger and included representatives from the Army,
and it decided how the city/country should be run.
However, the assembly was restricted only to free male citizens,

the wealthy and soldiers. The senate was the legislative body
which approved laws and later on, also selected the people who
would be members of the assembly. This made the senate a very
powerful body. The men in the assembly elected the consuls. There
was no real system of checks and balances between the three
different bodies; the consuls, the senate and the assembly. The
clientele system distorted the rudimentary democracy in Rome. It
45
Ibid.
46
Nathaniel Harris, Democracy, 14.
40
worked like a mafia. The members of the senate had faithful

followers called clients, who were given full protection in
exchange for unquestioning loyalty, including voting for them.
The early Roman republic began as a democracy, but the influence

of the Patricians (the wealthy aristocratic families) and the system
of clientalism weakened the democratic element and the majority
of the citizens did not have a say in government matters. Julius
Caesar gave the final blow to the Republic when he became
Emperor.
Here we can say that Europe was the birthplace of democracy,

since it originated in the Greek city-states of 5 B.C. But before
Aristotle’s Latin version of Politics began to be circulated in the
mid-thirteenth century, little was known in Europe of the
government of Athens and Aristotle’s strictures on democracy,
which he found to be a corrupt form of governance. This did not
offer good grounds for emulating its achievements in mediaeval
Europe.47
The Renaissance or Enlightenment became catalysts of change in

Europe. Renaissance began with the revival of the learning of
ancient Greece and Rome. Educated people started reading ancient
texts, rediscovering knowledge that had been lost or forgotten
during the Middle Ages also called the Dark Ages, when
feudalism, the tyranny of the Christian church and wars kept the
masses in Europe poor, downtrodden and illiterate.
The revival of ancient texts and their wider circulation, enticed the
people of the Age of Enlightenment to write books on philosophy,
and forms of government.
In this regard, the invention of the printing press gave the literate
people access to the works of philosophers and intellectuals. Thus
47
41
the seeds had been planted which blossomed, bringing about major
changes in European societies.
The Protestant Movement in the fifteenth century which created a

schism in the Christian church also contributed to the rise of
modern democracy both directly or indirectly, though Martin
Luther, the founder of the Protestant Movement, was a firm
believer in the authority of princes and had no use for democracy.48
The Protestants and the Catholics, after fighting many long drawn-
out and bloody wars, had to learn to coexist peacefully despite
their religious differences. This new spirit of tolerance became an
accepted practice in politics too. Also, the practice of self-
government in some Protestant churches promoted the idea of self-
government in politics as well.49
In 1689, the English Parliament passed the Bill of Rights, the

ancestor of similar charters in other countries later on. The Bill of
Rights emphasized the importance of the individual’s freedom in
many aspects of life, including government, law and religion. It
also laid down the principle that political authority rests with
parliament. Though it was a great step towards democracy, its
immediate result was government dominated by the aristocrats
rather than the common man.50
The American Revolution which began as a movement against

British rule of the American colonies also had a strong element of
democratic idealism. The British kingdom had established colonies
on American soil. As these expanded, the British government
decided to impose taxes on the colonists. The colonists evoking the
democratic principle argued that the British parliament could not
tax them because they did not have representation in it. The slogan
48
Colliers Encyclopedia, 80.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
42
“no taxation without representation” challenged British rule over

the American colonies.
In April 1775, British troops at Lexington exchanged fire with

armed colonists. A month later the second continental congress
wrote the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, one of
the leaders of the revolution drafted the declaration which pointed
out that a ruler has power only if given by the people he governs.
In 1783, the Treaty of Paris between the colonies and Britain was
ratified and American independence became a reality.
John Locke and Montesquieu undertook the task of writing the

American constitution. Both Locke and Montesquieu were inspired
by democracy in ancient Greece. The main objective of the authors
of the American constitution was to establish a balance of power
between the three branches of government – the executive, the
legislature and the judiciary.
The Congress, the legislative branch, would make laws. The

members of the Congress would be elected to represent the
citizens. The Congress would have two houses – the House of
Representatives (lower house) and the Senate (the upper house).
The President would head the executive branch, assisted by a
cabinet, advisors and other officials. Strong powers were given to
the President, but not enough to make him a tyrant.
The French revolution of 1789, radically transformed the social

order in France and recast ancient democracy into a new mould.51
The French revolution was the first successful attempt by a

European nation to establish a government by the people. French
revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity not only
affected France but also the whole of Europe, for the Napoleonic
wars that followed the French revolution, spread these ideas
51
Ibid, 25.
43
throughout the continent. The mediaeval institutions of monarchy

and feudalism got a severe blow from the revolution and while
monarchy endured in a diluted form, feudalism could not survive
in Europe. The French revolution promoted the idea of democracy
and popular sovereignty in Europe.
The idea of popular sovereignty is a predominantly modern

doctrine, designed to grant legitimacy to political institutions that
did not exist in the Grecian polity. Again the system of
representation of the masses in modern states, had no place at all in
the politics of ancient Athens.
As already pointed out, democratic ideas spread throughout Europe

in the Napoleonic era (1799-1815). Napoleon transformed the
conquered areas by abolishing feudalism, and class privilege.
The Congress of Vienna (1815) was convened by the Great Powers

of Europe after the defeat of the ‘parvenu’ emperor Napoleon. Its
aim was to restore the ancient regime and to stop the consolidation
of French revolutionary ideals which had begun to transform
societal norms in Europe. The Congress restored and legitimized
the monarchies of Europe, and the aristocrats and the privileged
classes were given back the privileges that they had lost.52
The so-called ‘Holy Alliance’ formed between Great Britain,

Russia, Prussia and Austria, protected the outcomes of the Vienna
Congress. Though the Holy Alliance was mainly a military
partnership to quell any future revolutions in Europe, it also
expressed the determination of these great powers to thwart the
resurgence of liberal and democratic trends in Europe.
The July Revolution of 1830 and the February Revolution of 1848

in France triggered revolts and revolutions in other parts of Europe
and paved the way for constitutional government. These
52
David Thomson, Europe Since Napoleon (London: Penguin, 1990), 130.
44
revolutions revived the idea of democracy introduced by the

French Revolution of 1789, albeit in a rudimentary form.
The Industrial Revolution also contributed to the evolution of

democracy. In Europe, the Industrial Revolution created a middle
class, which as it became stronger, struggled for the right to vote
and eventually achieved it. This middle class organized itself in the
form of interest groups and labour unions and put pressure on their
governments to grant them political participation.
Democracy progressed slowly and gradually and in most parts of

Europe universal suffrage was given first only to the propertied
male population, then extended to large sections of the working
class in the cities and the countryside and ultimately to women.
European women launched a prolonged and brave struggle called
the suffragette movement to gain equality and the right to vote.
Slavery was abolished first in theory and much later in practice.
The freeing of the Afro-American slaves by Abraham Lincoln after
the American civil war in the mid-nineteenth century dealt the final
blow to this abhorrent practice of enslaving human beings.
However, the blacks in the US had to struggle for another hundred
years by waging the civil rights movement, before they were fully
recognized as equal to the whites before the law. Democracies
were working well, though slowly when the First World War broke
out.
The war ended with the defeat and collapse of the German, the
Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman empires. In 1919, the Weimar
Republic replaced Germany’s Kaiser and his supporters – the
Junkers (the land owning aristocratic military class). Several new
states emerged in Eastern Europe and the Baltic region. All of
these were committed to democracy, but in different degrees.
Women were enfranchised in most of the old and new states.
Political parties emerged in the European democracies, which

represented the industrial working class. They adopted names such
45
as the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist Party or the Labour

Party. Their aim was to eventually change the economic system,
from capitalism to socialism, but not through revolution. In this
way they differed from the Marxist school of thought.
The socialists argued that political democracy was meaningless

unless accompanied by economic democracy, that would provide a
reasonable standard of living, adequate education, security and
leisure for all.53
The communist revolution in Russia during the First World War

overthrew the Russian monarchy and the privileged aristocracy,
bringing into power the Bolsheviks, led by V. I. Lenin. In the inter-
war years in Italy, the Fascist party led by Benito Mussolini, seized
power. Similar movements arose in some other European
countries, including Germany and fascism became a scourge.
Fascism was ultra-nationalistic, racist and militaristic, and after the

Great Depression hit Europe in 1929, fascism became more
widespread. In 1933, Adolf Hitler led the Nazi party to power in
Germany and within a few years fascist regimes took over in Spain
and Japan.
The aggressiveness and expansionism of the fascist regimes led to

the Second World War, in which the democratic western states
alongwith the Soviet Union confronted the fascist-ruled countries.
Though the fascist era lasted less than 25 years, it wrought
immense damage to the socio-political and economic structure of
Europe. Fascism could only be dislodged through an all out war
against the three main fascist powers – Germany, Italy and Japan.
After the war, the parliamentary system was adopted by the West
European countries, which had been under fascist regimes or Nazi
53
Ibid.
46
occupation. Democracy became well-entrenched in Western and

Nordic Europe.
The Soviet Union, breaking the promises it had made to the allied
powers in the war time conferences imposed ‘people’s
democracies’ on East and Central Europe which it had liberated
from fascism. It then became the Soviet Union’s aim to spread
communism throughout the world. World affairs were now
dominated by two opposing power blocs one led by the Soviet
Union and the other by the US. For nearly 45 years, the liberal
democratic West and the communist East confronted each other in
what is known as the cold war. The cold war ended in 1989-1991
with the collapse of the communist regimes in Central and East
Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Soviet-style communism enforced one-party rule, strengthened by

the KGB, the secret police and made it possible for an individual
and his clique to exercise dictatorial powers.54
Unlike fascism, Soviet communism lasted for more than seven

decades, but ultimately collapsed in 1991. The former communist
countries adopted the western multi-party political model. Though
the change was difficult, the Eastern European states successfully
completed their transitional phase and several of them have now
become part and parcel of the European Union and members of
NATO.
The failure of communism discredited the totalitarian system and

encouraged democratic movements in different parts of the world.
Here, the best example is that of South Africa, where the white
minority racist regime crumbled between 1990-1994, buckling
under international pressure and the prolonged and persistent anti-
apartheid movement spearheaded by the African National
Congress. The country’s first elections were held based on
54
Ibid, 45.
47
universal suffrage and Nelson Mandela the hero of the anti-

apartheid movement became the first black President of the
country. He pursued a policy of reconciliation with the white
minority, instead of unleashing revenge and reprisals against the
former elites.
Coming back to the post Second World War period, the defeated
states – apart from the countries occupied by the Soviet army,
adopted democratic constitutions and accepted the verdict of the
electorate. Thus, West Germany and Italy in Europe and Japan in
Asia became democratic states.
After the Second World War, circumstances forced Britain, France

and other European powers to give independence to their colonies
in Asia and Africa. Parliamentary regimes were set up in the
colonies by the departing colonial powers, but few of these thrived.
Here one can point to so many reasons for the failure of democracy
in the developing world. Among the most prominent causes was
dictatorship by charismatic leaders or army commanders, mass
poverty, illiteracy, political inexperience, ethnic and regional
conflicts and the selfish agendas of the former colonial masters and
the two superpowers, which emerged after the Second World War.
There is an ongoing struggle to establish democracy in many

developing countries. Until recently, an exception was the Middle
East and North Africa, where dictatorships, emirates and
monarchies are common. With the recent wave of democratic
movements in the Arab world, beginning with Tunisia, where mass
protests dislodged Ben Ali’s government, the Middle East seems to
be going through an awakening. Although one-party rule,
dictatorships and absolute monarchies still exist, a semblance of
multi-party democracy has been introduced in some countries.55
55
Ibid, 54.
48
Democracy as a form of government

All forms of government depend on their political legitimacy. In a
democracy, political legitimacy is reflected in the willingness of
the population to accept the writ of the state, the decisions of the
executive, legislature and the judiciary. A high level of political
legitimacy is necessary, for the electoral process periodically
divides the population into winners and losers. In a successful
democratic political culture the losing party and its supporters
accept the judgment of the voters and allow for the peaceful
transfer of power. Sham elections, doctored to re-elect the existing
regime, are not democratic.56
According to the definitions of political scientists, democracy is

rule by the people, but in practice the state rules through the
incumbent government. The state is an abstract body, represented
by officials. These state officials make the rules and execute
polices. As Hoppe points out, rulers of the contemporary
democratic states do not own the state, and have short terms to
maximize the benefits of power.57 Unlike, today’s idea of the state,
King Louis XIV of France had declared in the seventeenth century
‘l’état c’est moi’ (I am the state). This was the penultimate of
absolutist rule by an individual.
In a democracy, the people do participate in voting, but do not

directly participate in law making or law enforcement. Actually
nobody bothers to consult them on new laws and policies.
However, pressure is often applied by civil society groups and the
media, if it is free and strong, to protect and promote the people’s
welfare.
56
Andres Mikkelsen, “Democracy the Form of Government Almost Never
Tried”.
57
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy,
and the Idea of a Natural Order”, Journal of Liberation Studies 11, no. 2
(summer 1995), available at http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_ 2_3.pdf.
49
People do elect representatives to act as their voice, but elected

officials routinely violate campaign promises. While in power,
they pretty much do whatever they want. However, their
constituencies may have second thoughts about re-electing them, if
they do not deliver.
The situation is worse in developing countries where sham

elections are common. Another problem is the power of the
unelected officials – the bureaucrats, who do the actual work of
executing policy. Thus, free elections alone are not sufficient for a
country to become a true democracy; the culture of the country’s
political institutions and the manner in which the civil service is
run must also change.
50
View publication stats

F - Edited TasneemSultana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

F - Edited TasneemSultana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Evolution of Democracy through the Ages: Focus on the European

Article · January 2012

Research Article for Journal of European Studies View project

International Seminar View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Evolution of Democracy through the Ages:

The word ‘democracy’ is derived from two ancient Greek words:

in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and

Democracy has many aspects, e.g. political, economic and social,

Robert Dahl presented a comprehensive list of criteria for a

The fulfillment of these criteria ensures the development of stable

responsible for the elected officials; free, fair and frequent

In western democratic norms, besides free and fair elections,

On the other hand, in the Marxist concept of democracy, it is

The communists call the essentials of western democracy, i.e

stands as the genus to the species.18 According to Marx,

The Islamic concept of democracy is quiet similar to that of

Just as accountability of leaders is an essential principle of western

The other two salient features of a democratic polity, namely

While Islam insists on the ultimate sovereignty of Allah, in

Democracy has become the most widely accepted political system

direct universal suffrage anywhere in the world, except in

Virtually every country in the world proclaims itself to be a

The ancient Greeks, the inventors of democracy, described it as

The broad meaning of democracy in modern times is

In its most pristine form, a democracy would be run through

The different types of democracy are discussed below:

bureaucracy. While the broad policies are made by the elected

In a representative system, citizens’ involvement helps ensure that

If citizens are fully involved in a democratic system they feel a

Deliberative democracy, in simplest terms `refers to a conception

discussion in political life’.30 This way of thinking about

Those believing in deliberative democracy contend that laws and

In Athens, a Greek city state, all citizens (not slaves or plebeians

In modern times, some states have combined representative

referendum. Thus direct democracy can be practiced in the form of

Direct democracy has only rarely been practiced as a means of

Thus in direct democracy, citizens’ involvement or participation is

functions are given to a small body of elected representatives, it is

Catholic opposition to the rise of communist parties in Europe,

Origins and evolution of democracy

The birthplace of democracy was ancient Greece, particularly

Not all the Greek city-states were democratic. Plato condemned

Aristotle, though he was more sympathetic towards Democracy

Although he felt that persons of education and wealth should have

Despite the great achievements of the Athenian city-state, the idea

The Romans, drawing inspiration from the Greek civilization, set

As Rome expanded and became more populous, the Romans

However, the assembly was restricted only to free male citizens,

worked like a mafia. The members of the senate had faithful

The early Roman republic began as a democracy, but the influence

Here we can say that Europe was the birthplace of democracy,

The Renaissance or Enlightenment became catalysts of change in

The Protestant Movement in the fifteenth century which created a

In 1689, the English Parliament passed the Bill of Rights, the

The American Revolution which began as a movement against

“no taxation without representation” challenged British rule over

In April 1775, British troops at Lexington exchanged fire with

John Locke and Montesquieu undertook the task of writing the

The Congress, the legislative branch, would make laws. The

The French revolution of 1789, radically transformed the social