Chapter One

Understanding democracy and civic space

1.1. Political Regimes/ Systems

1.1.1. Democracy

Among the different political regimes, the type of government with which we are most
familiar is democracy, or a political system in which citizens govern themselves either
directly or indirectly. The term democracy comes from Greek and means “rule of the people.”
In Lincoln’s stirring words from the Gettysburg Address, democracy is “government of the
people, by the people, for the people.

Democracy is a 'mantra' term and as such it seems obvious that everybody understands
what it is all about. Strictly speaking, there are conceptual and methodological difficulties in
understanding and defining democracy. In this case, one difficulty in defining democracy
arises from the fact that political systems are in a continual state of evolution. Things that is
inconceivable in the political climate of one period of history become not merely possible in
another, but so generally accepted that they are taken for granted..
People can employ the term democracy to cover anything and everything they regard as
desirable, and there are even some who use it to cover any thing they think undesirable. It is
this very popularity of the term that makes democracy a difficult concept to understand.
When a term means anything to anyone, it is in danger of becoming entirely meaningless. For
instance, for Marxists and libertarian communists in democratic system there is no
separation between the 'rulers' and the 'ruled' and as such, they describe their own systems
as peoples democracies; and the system they decry as 'bourgeois dictatorship'. On the
contrary, most Western democracies deny that communist systems are democratic in the
sense in which they apply the term to themselves.

Etymologically, the word democracy is derived from two Greek words: demos and kratos,
which means common people and rule (legitimate power to rule) respectively. In this case the

1
word democracy refers to the idea of rule by the people or government by the people.
The lexicon or dictionary definition of the term entails that democracy is a state of
government in which people hold the ruling power either directly or indirectly through their
elected representatives. Accordingly, democracy embraces the principles of equality,
individual freedom and opportunity for the common people, as those who actually wield
political power. Moreover, the definition entails, among others, in democratic system, state
power involves compromise and bargaining in decision-making process in a democratic
system.
From the perspective of participation, democracy can be explained as, the mobilization of
constituent groups around the issues and problems of common concern, the organization of
forums for the expression of alternative views on the issues, and the implementation of
decision-making procedures based on majority rule. According to this definition, since the
practical establishment of democracy depends on individual citizens’ participation, without it
is difficult to influence government decisions or policies for just and fair public welfare.
Democracy in relation to public welfare is a rational way of understanding the role of political
participation in public decision-making. Ideally, it is based on the conviction that all people are
valuable as individuals, that they have inalienable rights, and that these rights must be
defended and preserved- not by means of ironhanded tyrants, but by means of people's
democracy.

Statesman, such as Abraham Lincoln (former US president) defined democracy as "….

government of the people, by the people and for the people." In this case, government of the
people represents the source of legitimacy as well as of government officials is from
nothing but the people, where as government by the people implies the idea of public
participation in the government process and governs themselves. This is what we call
popular self-government. Government for the people refers to the idea that government
officials should act for the advantage and according to the interest of the people.

Democracy can also be conceived as the institutionalization of freedom. That means

democracy is a set of ideas and principles as well as procedures and practices about human
and democratic rights, and freedoms. In this case, it refers to the process of organizing
agencies that can watch the respect of rights and freedoms, the signing and ratification of
international treaties and conventions and introduction of these rights and freedoms in the
fundamental law of a state. As such, institutionalization of freedom is possible by the
application of constitutional government, human rights and equality before law and the like. In
this regard, freedom means responsibility to do in line with national interest and then
answerable for one’s actions and inactions.

2
In addition, democracy is a peaceful resolution of conflict by applying the values of tolerance
(both vertical and horizontal), cooperation, compromise, consensus, pragmatism, civility, and
so on. These democratic values are instruments to resolve conflict peacefully

Moreover, democracy is an ideology that calls for people to elect their government and hold
that government accountable to them via elections.

 DIMENSIONS AND DEFINING FEATURES OF DEMOCRACY

 Democracy as a Way of Life

Democracy is a way of living and working together in peaceful and acceptable ways. As
ideals of democracy, the management of one’s own affair and citizen’s responsibility in self-
government are vital elements. In this case, the responsibility of citizens for self-
government is implemented by the application of democratic ethics. Thus, citizens are
expected to conceive and apply democratic ethics for successful self- governance.
Democratic ethics is a set of values and attitudes that is necessary for self- government.

 Democracy as a Form of Government

Democracy is a form of government organized in accordance with the principles of popular

sovereignty, political equality, popular consultation, and majority rule and minority rights, and
the like. These principles are briefly described below.

 Popular sovereignty refers to the idea that the ultimate power is vested in all adult
citizens (citizens who are in a legal age- majority). While political equality denotes the
notion that all adult citizens have the same opportunity as every other adult citizen to
participate in a political decision- making process. That is, equality in all sphere of
participation irrespective of color, sex, language, ethnic group, political out look,
religion, and the like. It can also be described as one person- one- vote. That is, all
votes are equally counted. Here, it refers to the idea that the vote of every adult
citizen has equal weight.
 Popular consultation refers to the articulation public interest. As such, there are two
requirements regarding this concept. First, public officials have to know policies that

3
 the people wish to be adopted and enforced via institutional machinery. Second, after
identifying the preferences of the people, public officials have to put these
preferences into practice.
 Majority rule and minority rights: means the idea that receives the larger number of
votes shall prevail. However, this does not imply the views and rights of the minority
should be suppressed or ignored, rather should be respected.

Popular sovereignty implies the idea that the ultimate and supreme power is
vested in the hands of the people.
Democracy as a system of Government

Though the term democracy is used to describe the United States system of government
and those systems of Western Europe whose claims to it are recognized by each other to
be valid, there is still plenty of room for divergent views and for misunderstanding of what is
implied by the word. Yet, within this framework, it is possible to provide a minimum definition.
As such, democracy is a system of government, and/or as set of institutions that fulfil at
least two essential requirements. These are:
 It must be able to elicit (get) as accurately as possible the opinion of as many people
as possible on who shall be their representatives and on how a country ought to be
governed. That means, as a minimum, universal suffrage, political parties, and the
organization of free voting in uncorrupt elections at relatively frequent intervals are
indispensable.
 It must provide ways of ensuring that those chosen by the public do in fact what the
electorate wants them to do or that they can be replaced if they do not, even
between elections. The fulfillment of these requirements entails methods of
supervising the work of governments, and keeping them in constant contact with
public opinion. Put differently, the process of government in a democracy is vitally a
dialogue between government and people. The effectiveness of the dialogue
depends upon national habits and circumstances as well as on the kind of machinery
by which the contacts are maintained. Dictators can achieve power by the use of
regular electoral machinery, but they then maintain themselves in power either by

4
 manipulating public opinion in their favor or by ignoring or repressing their free
expression.
Modern Democracies have evolved a number of complex institutions in order to fulfill the
requirements of a democratic system. In this case, as states come to play more and more
important roles in national affairs, their number and complexity are increasing. For instance,
up to the middle of the 19th century, most of the life of citizens was not the concern of the
state, but of the local community, the landlord, and the employer and the family in which
he/she lived or worked, together with. With the emergence of the modern state, vast social
and economic services, like transport and health services, the control of working conditions,
educational services, and the like, have grown up a whole gamut of organizations on both
national and local levels to supervise government controlled services, supply and receive
information on government polices and to exert pressure on government departments.
Despite the fact that these can help to maintain contacts and to make governments
responsive to public opinion on specific issues, it is difficult to ascertain with any accuracy
what public opinion is really on complex and technical matters. Consent that can be obtained
through the machinery of political parties and elections, ranges from active support to
passive acquiescence, in the form of a vote for the representative of a party, often in
ignorance of what their leaders really stand for. In this case, for instance, there are citizens
who either do not know what to think or do not care much for the above questions. Some
may be obsessed with their own sectional interests and care little about the possible effects
on their country as a whole. Some may be persuaded by ingeniously worded questions and
by propaganda to answer in a dozen or more contradictory ways any questions designed to
elicit their wishes. Similar difficulties arise in almost every field in which political institutions
now a day affect the lives of citizens.

The above difficulties have been to a large extent responsible for the present tendency to
regard traditional democratic theories of consent and participation, or dialogue, as unrealistic
and out-of-date. The contemporary passion for observing and measuring statistically, by
opinion polls and other devices, how people behave has led to conclude that the mass of the
people prefers passive acquiescence to active consent and refuses to accept the
responsibilities of participation. In this regard, John Stuart Mill in his Representative

5
Government, published in 1864, succinctly puts:
Some people, albeit, may vote without giving any rational consideration to an issue, and often
apparently without any serious thought at all, and that few may give clear explanations of
why they vote as they do. Even when voters are well informed, their knowledge reinforces
inclinations more than it contributes to a free decision. However, many contemporary
students of politics reject the classical assumption about the need for citizen participation at
best inadequate and at worst idealistic and overoptimistic. They argue that democracy that
is a system of decision- making in which governments are more or less responsive to the
preferences of the people, may seem to operate with a relatively low level of citizen
participation. Thus, it is inaccurate to say that one of the necessary conditions for
democracy is extensive citizen participation. It is only in an ideal democracy, unlikely to exist
in reality, could complete participation be envisaged. Democracy as a system of government
provides the means of achieving whatever ends the people seek to achieve.

Democracy as a Moral Imperative

Democracy is above all a moral value or imperative, that is, a basic human need, a necessity,
and therefore a political demand of all freedom loving human beings. What, then, is this
imperative? It is basically a permanent aspiration of human beings for freedom, for a better
social and political order, one that is more human and more or less egalitarian. This is a
sociological fact. In all human societies, people always feel the need to improve their material
conditions of life as well as to feel freer- whatever the real situation might be. This need
becomes a necessity, or even a political demand for a new social project, when their
situation deteriorates, or when they are in a period of crisis.
In abstract terms, the philosophical or moral approach to democracy explains democracy
primarily as an end rather than as the actual political institutions, which provide democratic
machinery. Viewing democracy as an end is far older than the institutional approach. This
approach is still preferred by many modern citizens who are not prepared to be active
members of political parties, pressure groups, and other political or professional
organizations via which political and economic interests and opinions are exercised and
influence is exerted. Such citizens see democracy in simpler terms. That means they do not

6
consider it as so much a program rather as a way of life.
The institutional and moral approaches are necessary for sustainability and actuality of the
concept of democracy. For instance, if the institutional approach is considered in isolation, it
becomes static and purposeless. Again, if the moral approach is considered in isolation, it
easily becomes escapist or utopian. In this case, it is impossible to discover how far
principles and ideas are realistic unless and other wise attempts are made actually to put
them into practice. In addition to this, the definition of democracy by itself is vague and more
subjective than definitions in term of institutions. For instance, describing democracy as a
society with liberty and justice for all, or as a way of life in a society in which each individual
is believed to be entitled to an equality of concern, or a society in which the people
thoughtfully resolve disagreements to secure all citizens, give no guidance to governments
as to how societies can be organized to provide these things.
In this regard, how can phrases like equality of concern or liberty and justice for all is
translated into acts? How can measures intended to produce equality be prevented from
merely imposing uniformity, which is surely the negation of liberty? How much liberty can be
permitted to individuals or groups with out creating the danger that they will use these
liberties to deprive other individuals and groups of their liberty and so on are some of the
difficulties to actually answer them. People do not love each other in obedience to acts of
parliament.

 Democracy as a Social Process

Like any human construction, democracy is never perfect. It is a continuous process of
promoting equal access to fundamental human rights and civil liberties for all. By this, we
mean (1) the fundamental rights of human person to life and security; (2) freedom of religion,
assembly, expression, press, association, etc.; (3) economic, social, and cultural rights- the
idea here being that democracy is meaningless when the basic needs of the population are
not satisfied; and (4) the right of peoples, including the inalienable right to self-determination.
Given this association with the quest for freedom and a better social order, the concept of
democracy is incomplete without reference to the notion of fundamental human rights.
Democracy is that social process through which people strive to expand these rights,
together with political space necessary for promoting and defending them effectively.

7
Central to this process is the idea that a good political order is the one in which the state is
capable of satisfying the needs of its citizens.
1.2.6 Democracy as a Political Practice
In this instance, democracy refers to a specific manner of organizing and exercising power
in accordance with certain universal norms and principles. There are two levels at which this
can be examined: the level of the principles themselves, and that of the institutions and
procedures of government which are compatible with democratic principles. These principles
are e to be discussed in the next lesson. Democracy as a political practice has to do with
existence of institutions and procedures of government, which are compatible with
democratic principles. As a form of rule based on consent of the governed, democracy
requires those institutions likely to help the people fulfill their deepest aspirations, while
maximizing their presence in the political space. Accordingly, democracy is inconceivable
without free and fair elections, representative government, and an independent judiciary.
Moreover, these institutions are unlikely to perform in a satisfactory way in the absence of
vibrant civil society and a free press.
What Democracy is not?
One advantage of looking at democracy in terms of institutions is that it can help us to avoid
some common misunderstandings about it. In this case, democracy may be synonym for
majority rule. In other words, democratic systems rely on universal adult suffrage and
majority rule. This is so when general agreement or compromise is impossible between
differing conceptions of how society ought to be organized. It is evident that majority rule
can be effective only with a tacit or explicit consent of the minority. However, when
minorities come to believe that the majority is unfairly treating them, they will sooner or later
cease to agree in majority rule. In this case, the mere existence of majority rule and election
does not have any guarantee unless the views of both minority and majority are put fairly to
the electorate. In this case, an election cannot be regarded as a reliable test of opinion, and
subsequently a democratic facade is created rather than the reality. In African states, for
instance, when minorities try to challenge the majority rule because of the reason mentioned
above, governments hush opposition movements by banning them via putting their leaders in
prison, or by restricting freedom of expression and so on. Most African states cannot afford

8
the demands of opposition parties. This is partly because of the fact that they are still
inexperienced and they have no political, economic or administrative resources that can
enable them to tackle all practical and urgent problems. Speaking specifically, there are no
effective democratic governments; no responsible give and take process, absence of
tolerating minority view, absence of opportunities for full and free discussion, and so on. The
possible repercussions of this situation include, inter alia:
 Opposition political parties become weak and fragile.
 The occurrence of coup d' etat,
 The occurrence of revolution
 Absence of stable government
 The existence of threat of disturbance and anarchy
 Absence of development
 Civil war and the likes.
Most of these countries are backward and inopportune educationally, politically, and
economically with a high proportion of illiterate citizens who are politically naive and cannot
be expected to discriminate between the possible and the impossible, the responsible and
the irresponsible. Besides, they have not yet acquired any settled national loyalties and have
wrestled with ethnic conflict as well as political oppositions unlike western democracies.
Western democracies are the result of a long training in self- government, which has
entailed the growth over the year of complex machinery to safeguard individual rights and
freedoms of opinion, and to protect their citizen against injustice of state. They have
organized political parties, pressure groups, a free press, an uncorrupt civil service,
independent courts of law, and so on. All this requires long experiences as well as a high
level of educational and social development.

 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND VALUES OF DEMOCRACY

Fundamental Principles and Values of Democracy

Just to remind you when we discuss democracy as a political practice we said that the idea
could be understood at two levels: at the level of existence of institutions and procedures of
government. The followings are some of the most frequently mentioned universal principles

9
of democratic governance.

1) The idea that legitimate power or authority emanates from the people, who exercise
it directly through popular assemblies, or by delegation through elected assemblies,
elected executives or some other modes of representation.
2) The concept of rule of law, which means that power should not be arbitrary, and that
its exercise must be circumscribed by a set of rules with respect to its limits and
mode of operation. According to this principle, the parameters of state power and the
sphere of governmental authority are well defined and limited so as to allow space
for other societal actors. By limiting the realm of governmental regulation, democracy
recognizes that there are human activities, which are best dealt with by other
institutions such as the family or voluntary associations. Moreover, the concept of
rule of law implies that within the public sphere, everything is done in conformity with
the law, and that there exists a judicial system capable of ensuring the impartiality of
law as well as the protection of the rights and liberties of individuals and groups.
3) The principle that the rulers are chosen by and are accountable to the people. The
element of choice implies that democracy is a government by the consent of the
governed, who must approve the rulers by which they are administered. Here is
where the notion of accountability comes in: the rulers are accountable to the people
for their acts.
4) The right of citizens to participate in the management of public affairs through free,
transparent and democratic elections; decentralized governmental structure; and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This implies the right to organize freely,
political pluralism, and the independence of the organization of civil society from the
state.
5) The right of people to change a government that no longer serves their interests, or
the right to recall. People have the right of calling back and replace those
governments who act against the will of the people.
6) Tolerance refers to the accommodation of divergent views, believes, cultures
languages etc. It means accepting and respecting other people's customs, beliefs,
opinions etc. Thus, tolerance is very important for the peaceful co-existence of

10
 people. Tolerance enables you to understand that other people have the right to hold
opinions, beliefs and positions that are different from your own. Majority and minority
rights run smoothly when tolerance is maintained. In a democratic system while the
decisions of majority prevail at
7) Liberty: democracy as a system ensures freedom to the possible degree for all the
people so that they could develop their own capacity and potential. Liberty refers to
the freedom enjoyed by citizens to lead their life in their own way. The right to liberty
is founded on the theoretical justification that a society is characterized by value
pluralism. Human beings make choices in all their lives and the choice and preference
of individuals vary. For example, what an individual believes as the right kind of
worship is different from another; the association, which an individual seeks to be a
member, differs from others. So the best way of accommodating all these diverse
interests is guaranteeing the right to liberty to the individual.
Liberty is freedom from all kinds of restrictions except those that are clearly defined
and imposed by the law. Liberty implies the use and full realization of one's potential in
all justified and legal ways including acquiring useful knowledge establish home and
bring up children.
Liberty is one of the fundamental rights of individuals. Major revolutions of the world,
particularly, the American and French Resolutions, were liberal revolutions. In Ethiopia the
right to liberty is mentioned in article 17 of the FDRE constitution.

No one shall be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with
such procedures as established by law (Art.17
8) Majority Rule with Minority Rights: democracy requires government decisions to be
based upon majority rule. In a democracy people usually accept decisions made by
majority of the voters in a free election. Rule of majority also implies that laws enacted
in the legislature represent the will of the majority of lawmakers. Because people elect
lawmakers and thus accept laws made by them. However, democracy requires attention
and concern for with holding the possible tyranny of majorities. A decision made by
majority may not win the support of all. In practical life, unanimity of agreement on all
issues is rarely achieved. Our world is full of people with divergent interests and views.
In a democracy, decisions are made on the basis of the interest and the will of majority,
and decisions made by majorities prevail over that of the minorities. That is the idea that
receives large number of votes, be it in election, in parliament, or in local community
meetings, prevails over those few who disagree. Nevertheless, democracy is not a
system in which the views and the rights of minorities is suppressed or ignored. It is

11
 important to note that an idea that has a minority support today could, if properly
addressed, be transformed into an idea of the majority in the feature. For example, it
would be most un-reasonable to permit the majority to punish the minority for its dissent
by threats of bodily harm, exile, or expropriation. Minorities should be given with the right
to freely air their views, peaceably assemble and to petition government for the redress
of grievances.

9) Accountability and Transparency: government officials in democratic political

systems are elected by the people and, hence are responsible to the people. These
officials are expected to act in favor of the advantage and interest of the people.
Accountability implies that government officials are answerable to the decisions and
acts they took. Failure in duty will make an official answerable to it. Transparency
implies openness of the activities of government officials and institutions to the
public. That is a government official and institutions in a democracy notify or publicize
key decisions they made to the public. Ensuring the transparency of government
officials requires the granting of the rights to freedom of speech and press for the
full fledged exchange and transmission of information from media institutions which
are owned privately or by the state.
10) Multiparty system: the existence of different competing political parties is an
important feature of a democratic political system. A political party is a group of
individuals with broad common interests who are organized to nominate candidates
for office, win an election, conduct government and determine public policy. Rival
and competing political parties make elections meaningful. The existence of several
political parties gives voters the opportunity to elect among candidates and
alternative policies. In addition, political parties that did not hold the helm of political
power serve as loyal opposition. That is by criticizing and commenting on
government policies and actions of the party in power, they can make those in
power more responsible, transparent and accountable to the people.

WAYS OF EXERCISING DEMOCRACY

1. Direct (Pure, Ideal) Democracy

Direct democracy, which sometimes also referred as pure or ideal democracy, is a system
of self-governance in which all citizens participate in decision-making process. In today's
politics such type of democracy can only be exercised in areas of small number of population
as for example in kebeles, schools, or rural villages. In direct democracy, members of
community meet at certain place to discuss issues and arrive at decision either by
consensus or by majority vote.
The origin of direct democracy can be traced back to ancient Athens. In the ancient
Athenian city-state, all adult male citizens met in assembly and made decisions. Athenians
were ruling themselves directly without intermediaries of representatives. Political
participation in Athens, however, was not all-inclusive and opens to all. Women, slaves and
aliens were not considered as citizens and hence were not allowed to participate in the
assembly. In strict parlance, the Athenian democracy was not an ideal or pure model of

12
democracy. Nevertheless, the Greek experiment of democracy is generally considered to
have provided important lesson for today's world. This is partly because of the facts that:
 It was the first known example of democracy, and
 It was carried out in circumstances that can never be repeated, which makes it
possible to study a much simpler form of democratic government.

Direct democracy, which sometimes referred, as pure or ideal democracy, is a system

of self-governance in which all citizens participate in decision-making process.

Direct democracy (pure democracy) is an exercise of democracy, in which ‘all citizens’

without the intermediary of elected officials can participate in decision-making process. In
today's politics such type of democracy is feasible only in relatively small numbers of people
in localities and in some special instances of referendum, plebiscite, initiative and recall at
national levels. In such cases, citizens can meet in a single place to discuss issues and arrive
at decisions by consensus or other voting mechanisms. The followings are some of the brief
descriptions of direct democracy.
 Referendum: an important bill passed by the legislature must be put to the
voters' final ratification. In case, if it is adopted by the required vote, it
becomes a law. Thus, veto power is in the hand of voters.
 Plebiscite: it is a synonym of referendum. It means that any important
issues that cannot be solved by the government for some reasons should
be decided by votes of the people, that means let the decision of the
people be final.
 Initiative: it is an arrangement where by specified number of voters may
prepare the draft of law and may then demand that either be adopted by
the legislature or referred to the people for acceptance at a general or
special election. If approved by the required majority, it then becomes a
law.
 Recall: means that voters have the right to call back their elected
representatives in case they are not satisfied with their roles or behavior
and then elect someone else instead.

In direct (or pure) democracies, people make their own decisions about the policies and
distribution of resources that affect them directly. An example of such a democracy in
action is the New England town meeting, where the residents of a town meet once a year
and votes on budgetary and other matters. However, such direct democracies are
impractical when the number of people gets beyond a few hundred. Representative
democracies are thus much more common. In these types of democracies, people elect
officials to represent them in legislative votes on matters affecting the population.

2. Indirect (Representative) Democracy

13
This is the modern type of democracy that we have today. In political parlance democracy
differs from all other forms of government in that it postulates the free organizations of
opposing options. In this regard, the mining of representative form of democracy is that the
whole people cannot directly participate in their own affairs but through their
representatives, which are periodically elected by the people themselves. That means a few
represent the many. In this case, leaders must maintain some contact with voters so as to
stay in power. This involves some organized form of consultation with the people as we
discussed earlier. Representation, per se, is not in itself guarantee for democracy and may
be neither elective nor democratic.

Representative democracy is more practical than direct democracy in a society of any

significant size, but political scientists cite another advantage of representative democracy.
At least in theory, it ensures that the individuals who govern a society and in other ways help
a society function are the individuals who have the appropriate talents, skills, and knowledge
to do so. In this way of thinking, the masses of people are, overall, too uninformed, too
uneducated, and too uninterested to run a society themselves. Representative democracy
thus allows for “the cream to rise to the top” so that the people who actually govern a
society are the most qualified to perform this essential task (Seward, 2010). Although this
argument has much merit, it is also true that many of the individuals who do get elected to
office turn out to be ineffective and/or corrupt. Regardless of our political orientations,
Americans can think of many politicians to whom these labels apply, from presidents down to
local officials. in relation to political lobbying, elected officials may also be unduly influenced
by campaign contributions from corporations and other special-interest groups. To the
extent this influence occurs, representative democracy falls short of the ideals proclaimed
by political theorists.

The defining feature of representative democracy is voting in elections. When the United
States was established more than 230 years ago, most of the world’s governments were
monarchies or other authoritarian regimes (discussed shortly). Like the colonists, people in
these nations chafed under arbitrary power. The example of the American Revolution and
the stirring words of its Declaration of Independence helped inspire the French Revolution of

14
1789 and other revolutions since, as people around the world have died in order to win the
right to vote and to have political freedom.

Democracies are certainly not perfect. Their decision-making process can be quite slow and
inefficient; as just mentioned, decisions may be made for special interests and not “for the
people”; and, as we have seen in earlier chapters, pervasive inequalities of social class, race
and ethnicity, gender, and age can exist. Moreover, in not all democracies have all people
enjoyed the right to vote. In the United States, for example, African Americans could not
vote until after the Civil War, with the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, and women
did not win the right to vote until 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment.

In addition to generally enjoying the right to vote, people in democracies also have more
freedom than those in other types of governments. depicts the nations of the world
according to the extent of their political rights and civil liberties. The freest nations are found
in North America, Western Europe, and certain other parts of the world, while the least free
lie in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa

1.1.2. Monarchy

Monarchy is a political system in which power resides in a single family that rules from one
generation to the next generation. The power the family enjoys is traditional authority, and
many monarchs command respect because their subjects bestow this type of authority on
them. Other monarchs, however, have ensured respect through arbitrary power and even
terror. Royal families still rule today, but their power has declined from centuries ago. Today
the Queen of England holds a largely ceremonial position, but her predecessors on the
throne wielded much more power.

This example reflects a historical change in types of monarchies from absolute monarchies
to constitutional monarchies (Finer, 1997). In absolute monarchies, the royal family claims a
divine right to rule and exercises considerable power over their kingdom. Absolute
monarchies were common in both ancient (e.g., Egypt) and medieval (e.g., England and China)
times. In reality, the power of many absolute monarchs was not totally absolute, as kings and

15
queens had to keep in mind the needs and desires of other powerful parties, including the
clergy and nobility. Over time, absolute monarchies gave way to constitutional monarchies. In
these monarchies, the royal family serves a symbolic and ceremonial role and enjoys little, if
any, real power. Instead the executive and legislative branches of government—the prime
minister and parliament in several nations—run the government, even if the royal family
continues to command admiration and respect. Constitutional monarchies exist today in
several nations, including Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.

1.1.3. Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are general terms for nondemocratic political systems
ruled by an individual or a group of individuals who are not freely elected by their populations
and who often exercise arbitrary power. To be more specific, authoritarianism refers to
political systems in which an individual or a group of individuals holds power, restricts or
prohibits popular participation in governance, and represses dissent. Totalitarianism refers to
political systems that include all the features of authoritarianism but are even more
repressive as they try to regulate and control all aspects of citizens’ lives and fortunes.
People can be imprisoned for deviating from acceptable practices or may even be killed if
they dissent in the mildest of ways.

Compared to democracies and monarchies, authoritarian and totalitarian governments are

more unstable politically. The major reason for this is that these governments enjoy no
legitimate authority. Instead their power rests on fear and repression. The populations of
these governments do not willingly lend their obedience to their leaders and realize that their
leaders are treating them very poorly; for both these reasons, they are more likely than
populations in democratic states to want to rebel. Sometimes they do rebel, and if the
rebellion becomes sufficiently massive and widespread, a revolution occurs. In contrast,
populations in democratic states usually perceive that they are treated more or less fairly
and, further, that they can change things they do not like through the electoral process.
Seeing no need for revolution, they do not revolt.

16
Since World War II, which helped make the United States an international power, the United
States has opposed some authoritarian and totalitarian regimes while supporting others. The
Cold War pitted the United States and its allies against Communist nations, primarily the
Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and North Korea. But at the same time the United States opposed
these authoritarian governments, it supported many others, including those in Chile,
Guatemala, and South Vietnam, that repressed and even murdered their own citizens who
dared to engage in the kind of dissent constitutionally protected in the United States
(Sullivan, 2008). Earlier in U.S. history, the federal and state governments repressed dissent
by passing legislation that prohibited criticism of World War I and then by imprisoning citizens
who criticized that war (Goldstein, 2001). During the 1960s and 1970s, the FBI, the CIA, and
other federal agencies spied on tens of thousands of citizens who engaged in dissent
protected by the First Amendment (Cunningham, 2004). While the United States remains a
beacon of freedom and hope to much of the world’s peoples, its own support for repression
in the recent and more distant past suggests that eternal vigilance is needed to ensure that
“liberty and justice for all” is not just an empty slogan.

1.1.4. Absolutism

Absolutism defines a political system of the early modern period which, from a traditional
perspective, was defined as the reign of a king whose power was attached to his person
and he reigned without the participation of state institutions. The term "absolutism" is also
used for the period of the European history between the religious wars of the 16th to early
17th century and the revolutions of the late 18th century, where we could find elements of
this political regime. The sovereign relies on five pillars of power: its standing army, the
judiciary and the police, the administration of which the king is the head, the nobility at the
royal court, the Church of the State (the clergy) and mercantilism, a political and economic
theory related to absolutism, whose objective is the health of the state budget. In order to
achieve these goals, all means could be implemented.

1.1.5. Anarchy

17
Anarchy defines a political system characterized by the absence of a government. It is a
term used mainly in the political philosophy, where anarchism propagates such social order.
On the contrary, in international relations, the concept describes, especially in realistic
theories, the situation of the international system of states. The reasoning about anarchy
started already in antiquity. But the concept of anarchy was created only in the 19th century
as an anti-movement and anti-political concept of the monarchy and democracy. Originally, in
ancient Greece, anarchy meant the absence of absolute sovereign, derived from the person
of the archon * that was created after the royal dynasties.

1.1.6. Aristocracy

In the history of political thinking, the notion of aristocracy refers to the governance of a
small group of elites. This means that a relatively small number of particularly capable
individuals manage the State. However, it is not defined what this capacity to rule consists
of. The original meaning of the word is « the rule of the best ». In political reality, it often
went hand in hand with belonging to the noble class. For this reason, since antiquity,
aristocracy is the rule of the nobility.

1.1.7. Autocracy

Autocracy means « who draws their power (cracy) from themselves (auto). » As a system
or political system, autocracy unifies all the powers of the political system in a central force
and does not include in no way participation of the people in state power. The possessor of
these powers can be an individual (e.g. a dictator) or a group (party, junta or committee).
Two of the examples of autocracy are absolute monarchy and dictatorship.

Dictatorship is a political system characterized by a single ruler, the dictator, or a group of

governors (e.g. a party, a junta or a family) whose power is unlimited. Unlike democracy, a dictator
does not justify his claim to rule (literally: the right to gain power) by free elections. The condition of
the notion dictatorship is its illegitimacy. This means that either it has removed a legitimate political
system, or that it has no legitimate or constitutional origin. The dictator draws his legitimacy usually
from a particular danger or a state crisis that he could parry.

18
Military regime denotes a political system whose executive authority is derived from the
army. Pure military regimes are rare. Throughout the history, there were more cases
combining the civilian regimes dominated behind the scenes by the army. Thus civilian
governments do not get the complete political power and can be dismissed by a military
intervention of their own armed forces or be controlled otherwise. Reasons for such an
intervention can be the guarantee of stability or efforts to maintain the status quo. In
countries dominated by the army, the level of its influence can go from the right of veto until
the complete absorption of state power. The resulting military regime can be short duration
(two to four years) until the desired state is restored by the army; but it can also be
permanent.

The republic is a political system that focuses on the community and the common good.
Since the Roman times, and especially since the French Revolution, it is primarily seen as a
model opposing the monarchy. From the modern point of view, it is a political system where
the people are the foundation of the State, what gives it legitimacy, and they hold the
majority of powers in the State. Yet the inner workings of the republic may differ from state
to state. The republics with democratic government form the majority, but are not the only
model. The republican character indicates only the absence of a monarch. Any other political
system is possible. People's participation in the creation of the state will is not necessarily a
republican criterion.

Waves of Democratization

During the third wave, the European Community (EC) played a key role in consolidating
democracy in southern Europe. In Greece, Spain, and Portugal, the establishment of
democracy was seen as necessary to secure the economic benefits of EC membership,
while Community membership was in turn seen as a guarantee of the stability of democracy.
In 1981, Greece became a full member of the Community, and five years later Spain and
Portugal did as well. In April 1987, Turkey applied for full EC membership. One incentive was
the desire of Turkish leaders to reinforce modernizing and democratic tendencies in Turkey
and to contain and isolate the forces in Turkey supporting Islamic fundamentalism. Within the

19
Community, however, the prospect of Turkish membership met with little enthusiasm and
even some hostility (mostly from Greece). In 1990, the liberation of Eastern Europe also
raised the possibility of membership for Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The
Community thus faced two issues. First, should it give priority to broadening its membership
or to "deepening" the existing Community by moving toward further economic and political
union? Second, if it did decide to expand its membership, should priority go to European Free
Trade Association members like Austria, Norway, and Sweden, to the East Europeans, or to
Turkey? Presumably the Community can only absorb a limited number of countries in a given
period of time. The answers to these questions will have significant implications for the
stability of democracy in Turkey and in the East European countries. The withdrawal of
Soviet power made possible democratization in Eastern Europe. If the Soviet Union were to
end or drastically curtail its support for Castro's regime, movement toward democracy might
occur in Cuba. Apart from that, there seems little more the Soviet Union can do or is likely to
do to promote democracy outside its borders. The key issue is what will happen within the
Soviet Union itself. If Soviet control loosens, it seems likely that democracy could be
reestablished in the Baltic states. Movements toward democracy also exist in other
republics. Most important, of course, is Russia itself. The inauguration and consolidation of
democracy in the Russian republic, if it occurs, would be the single most dramatic gain for
democracy since the immediate post-World War II years. Democratic development in most
of the Soviet republics, however, is greatly complicated by their ethnic heterogeneity
Samuel P. Huntington 15 and the unwillingness of the dominant nationality to allow equal
rights to ethnic minorities. As Sir Ivor Jennings remarked years ago, "the people cannot
decide until somebody decides who are the people." It may take years if not decades to
resolve the latter issue in much of the Soviet Union. During the 1970s and 1980s the United
States was a major promoter of democratization. Whether the United States continues to
play this role depends on its will, its capability, and its attractiveness as a model to other
countries. Before the mid-1970s the promotion of democracy had not always been a high
priority of American foreign policy. It could again subside in importance. The end of the Cold
War and of the ideological competition with the Soviet Union could remove one rationale for
propping up anti-communist dictators, but it could also reduce the incentives for any

20
substantial American involvement in the Third World. American will to promote democracy
may or may not be sustained. American ability to do so, on the other hand, is limited. The
trade and budget deficits impose new limits on the resources that the United States can use
to influence events in foreign countries. More important, the ability of the United States to
promote democracy has in some measure run its course. The countries in Latin America, the
Caribbean, Europe, and East Asia that were most susceptible to American influence have,
with a few exceptions, already become democratic. The one major country where the
United States can still exercise significant influence on behalf of democratization is Mexico.
The undemocratic countries in Africa, the Middle East, and mainland Asia are less
susceptible to American influence. Apart from Central America and the Caribbean, the major
area of the Third World where the United States has continued to have vitally important
interests is the Persian Gulf. The Gulf War and the dispatch of 500,000 American troops to
the region have stimulated demands for movement toward democracy in Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia and delegitimized Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. A large American military
deployment in the Gulf, if sustained over time, would provide an external impetus toward
liberalization if not democratization, and a large American military deployment probably could
not be sustained over time unless some movement toward democracy occurred. The U.S.
contribution to democratization in the 1980s involved more than the conscious and direct
exercise of American power and influence. Democratic movements around the world have
been inspired by and have borrowed from the American example. What might happen,
however, if the American model ceases to embody strength and success, no longer seems
to be the winning model? At the end of the 1980s, many were arguing that "American
decline" was the true reality. If people around the world come to see the United States as a
fading power beset by 16 Journal of Democracy political stagnation, economic inefficiency,
and social chaos, its perceived failures will inevitably be seen as the failures of democracy,
and the worldwide appeal of democracy will diminish

1.2. Understanding civic space

Civic Space: is the environment that enables civil society to play a role in the political,
economic and social life of our societies. In particular, civic space allows individuals and

21
groups to contribute to policy-making that affects their lives, including by:

 accessing information,
 engaging in dialogue,
 expressing dissent or disagreement, and
 Joining together to express their views.

An open and pluralistic civic space that guarantees freedom of expression and opinion as
well as freedom of assembly and association, is a prerequisite for making development and
peace sustainable.

Civic space is under pressure

Today, this civic space is under pressure. Repressive laws are spreading, with increased
restrictions on freedoms to express, participate, assemble and associate. New technologies
have helped civil society networks to grow, but they’ve also given governments excuses to
control civil society movements and media freedoms, often under security pretexts.

Civil society actors are facing pushback

Civil society actors, including those who cooperate with the United Nations, are also facing a
pushback across the world. Online and off-line attacks on human rights defenders, including
journalists and environmental activists, continue and in many places are worsening. In the
most extreme cases, human rights defenders have suffered arbitrary detention, torture,
enforced disappearance and killings.

Human rights defenders are at the forefront protecting and promoting human rights - but
they too need protection.

Civic space is the bedrock of any open and democratic society. When civic space is
open, citizens and civil society organizations are able to organize, participate and
communicate without hindrance. In doing so, they are able to claim their rights and influence
the political and social structures around them. This can only happen when a state holds by

22
its duty to protect its citizens and respects and facilitates their fundamental rights to
associate, assemble peacefully and freely express views and opinions.

Civic space is created by a set of universally-accepted rules, which allow people to organise,
participate and communicate with each other freely and without hindrance, and in doing so,
influence the political and social structures around them. It is a concept central to any open
and democratic society and means that states have a duty to protect people while respecting
and facilitating the fundamental rights to associate, assemble peacefully and express views and
opinions. It may consist of the following rights of citizens.

Association

The right to the freedom of association is the right of any citizen to join a formal or informal
group to take collective action. This right includes the right to form a new group and join an
existing group. Associations can include civil society organizations, clubs, cooperatives,
non-governmental organizations, religious associations, political parties, trade unions,
foundations and online associations, as well as less defined and new forms of groups such
as social movements. There is no requirement that the association be registered in order for
the right of the freedom of association to apply. Under the right to the freedom of
association, groups have the right to access funding and resources.

Peaceful Assembly

The right to the freedom of peaceful assembly is the right of citizens to gather publicly or
privately and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. This right
includes the right to participate in peaceful assemblies, meetings, protests, strikes, sit-ins,
demonstrations and other temporary gatherings for a specific purpose. States not only have
an obligation to protect peaceful assemblies, but should also take measures to facilitate
them.

Expression

The right to the freedom of expression includes the right to access information, critically

23
evaluate and speak out against the policies and actions of state and non-state actors, and
publicly draw attention to and carry out advocacy actions to promote shared concerns,
without fear of retribution from any quarter. Civil society organisations should be assured the
freedom to carry out investigations and document their findings under this right.

The state's duty to protect civil society

Built into each of the three core freedoms is the understanding that a state must go beyond
simply refraining from interfering in citizens' enjoyment of their rights. The state must
actively take steps to protect people who choose to associate, peacefully assemble and
express themselves. When the state actively protects rights, civil society organisations can
pursue peaceful causes and express themselves without fear of retribution, while
demonstrators are protected during public gatherings. The state's duty to protect also means
that, when rights are violated, there should be thorough police investigations and legal
proceedings. When such steps are not taken, impunity for those who attack civil society
prevails.

Political Regimes

The obstacles to democratization in these groups of countries are political, cultural, and
economic. One potentially significant political obstacle to future democratization is the virtual
absence of experience with democracy in most countries that remained authoritarian in
1990. Twenty-three of 30 countries that democratized between 1974 and 1990 had had
some history of democracy, while only a few countries that were nondemocratic in 1990
could claim such experience. These included a few third-wave backsliders (Sudan, Nigeria,
Suriname, and possibly Pakistan), four second-wave backsliders that had not
redemocratized in the third wave (Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Burma, Fiji), and three first-wave
democratizers that had been prevented by Soviet occupation from redemocratizing at the
end of World War II (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). Virtually all the 90 or more other
nondemocratic countries in 1990 lacked significant past experience with democratic rule.
This obviously is not a decisive impediment to democratization--if it were, no countries
would now be democratic--but it does make it more difficult. Another obstacle to

24
democratization is likely to disappear in a number of countries in the 1990s. Leaders who
found authoritarian regimes or rule them for a long period tend to become particularly
staunch opponents of democratization. Hence some form of leadership change within the
authoritarian system usually precedes movement toward democracy. Human mortality is
likely to ensure such changes in the 1990s in some authoritarian regimes. In 1990, the
long-term rulers in China, C6te d'Ivoire, and Malawi were in their eighties; those in Burma,
Indonesia, North Korea, Lesotho, and Vietnam were in their seventies; and the leaders of
Cuba, Morocco, Singapore, Somalia, Syria, Tanzania, Zaire, and Zambia were sixty or older.
The death or departure from office of these leaders would remove one obstacle to
democratization in their countries, but would not make it inevitable. Between 1974 and 1990,
democratization occurred in personal dictatorships, military regimes, and one-party systems.
Full-scale democratization has not yet occurred, however, in communist one-party states
that were the products of domestic revolution. Liberalization has taken place in the Soviet
Union, which may or may not lead to fullscale democratization in Russia. In Yugoslavia,
movements toward democracy are underway in Slovenia and Croatia. The Yugoslav
communist revolution, however, was largely a Serbian revolution, and the prospects for
democracy in Serbia appear dubious. In Cambodia, an extraordinarily brutal revolutionary
communist regime was replaced by a less brutal communist regime imposed by outside
force. In 1990, Albania appeared to be opening up, but in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and
Ethiopia, Marxist-Leninist regimes produced by home-grown revolutions seemed determined
to remain in power. The revolutions in 22 Journal of Democracy these countries had been
nationalist as welt as communist, and hence nationalism reinforced communism in a way that
obviously was not true of Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe. One serious impediment to
democratization is the absence or weakness of real commitment to democratic values
among political leaders in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. When they are out of power,
political leaders have good reason to advocate democracy. The test of their democratic
commitment comes once they are in office. In Latin America, democratic regimes have
generally been overthrown by military coups d'rtat. This has happened in Asia and the Middle
East as well, but in these regions elected leaders themselves have also been responsible for
ending democracy: Syngman Rhee and Park Chung Hee in Korea, Adrian Menderes in

25
Turkey, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore, Indira Gandhi in
India, and Sukamo in Indonesia. Having won power through the electoral system, these
leaders then proceeded to undermine that system. They had little commitment to democratic
values and practices. Even when Asian, African, and Middle Eastern leaders have more or
less abided by the rules of democracy, they often seemed to do so grudgingly. Many
European, North American, and Latin American political leaders in the last half of the
twentieth century were ardent and articulate advocates of democracy. Asian and African
countries, in contrast, did not produce many heads of government who were also apostles of
democracy. Who were the Asian, Arab, or African equivalents of R6mulo Betancourt,
Alberto Llera Camargo, Jos6 Figueres, Eduardo Frei, Fernando Belafnde Terry, Juan Bosch,
Jos6 Napolern Duarte, and Ratil Alfonsin? Jawaharlal Nehru and Corazon Aquino were, and
there may have been others, but they were few in number. No Arab leader comes to mind,
and it is hard to identify any Islamic leader who made a reputation as an advocate and
supporter of democracy while in office. Why is this? This question inevitably leads to the
issue of culture.

26