speech writing democracy is the best form of government

Democracy as the Best Form of Government Essay

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

A democracy is a form of governance characterized by power sharing. The implication of this is that all the citizens have an equal voice in the way a nation is governed. This often encompasses either direct or indirect involvement in lawmaking. “Democracy” can be a very delicate subject for any writer.

Throughout history, various scholars, including ancient philosophers, have had a divergent view on whether democracy is the best form of governance (Kelsen 3). Some of these arguments are discussed in this essay. Democracy appears to go hand in hand with national unity.

This is particularly true because this form of governance is all about people, and these people are working together towards attainment of national goals. The cohesiveness also results from the freedom prevailing in a democratic environment. Unity and liberty in a nation lay a fertile ground for economic and social growth (Weatherford 121).

In a democratic form of government, the entire citizenry is cushioned against exploitation and all form of abuse. As opposed to other governance approaches (for instance monarchy and dictatorship), democracy engages the people in decision-making processes. This ensures efficient delivery of basic services such as education, health care, and security.

Moreover, these services will be of high quality. Having people govern themselves significantly minimizes the risk of running a nation into chaos. In operational democracies, policies must undergo thorough scrutiny by many organs of government and stakeholders before they are made laws. The modalities of implementing the laws are also carefully determined.

In such a corporate system, it would be rare for all the involved people to be wrong. Therefore democracy protects a nation against the consequences of human errors. As a consequence of reduced possibility for human errors, people will experience a nation devoid of civil wars and strife. This atmosphere, in turn, perpetuates the general growth of a nation.

Democracy acts as a framework within which the law about the basic human rights operates (Barak 27). In a democratic environment, the law gives equal entitlement to the bill of rights with total disregard of race, ethnicity or economic class.

On the other hand, democracy may not be worth the high status it has been accorded for centuries by many schools of thought. Democracy gives an opportunity for all citizens to vote (Williamson 36). This can be technically hazardous to a nation. An average voter is not adequately equipped with the necessary information on the economic and political aspects of a nation.

The direct implication is that a fairly large percentage of voters will base their choice on limited and incorrect information. This situation can greatly impair development. Democratic approaches tend to slow down the process of policy-making and implementation (Dahl 49). This is due to the bureaucracies associated with democracy.

For example, it may take twelve months for parliament to debate over a bill, pass it into law and fully enforce it. In a dictatorial system, however, the same process would take utmost one day. For many years, democracy has been synonymous with political instability (Snell 18). The high turnover rate of governments comes with drastic changes in national and international policies.

New governments tend to attract much criticism from the media and non-governmental bodies. This criticism and alteration of international relations policies keep off foreign investors, something that can have immense economic implications to a nation.

The seemingly most feared danger of democracy relates to the basic rights of the minority. A case in point is the Netherlands. The Dutch parliament enacted a law against female genital mutilation. The Somali living in the Netherlands could not have a say in this because they are a small group.

In conclusion, the name a government gives itself is immaterial. Whether a government calls itself democratic, anarchy, monarchy, or dictatorial, the most important question should be “Are the people getting back what they deserve?”

Works Cited

Barak, Aharon. The Judge in a Democracy . New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.

Dahl, Robert. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Print.

Kelsen, Hans. “Foundations of Democracy.” Ethics 66.1 (1955):1–101.

Snell, Daniel. Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East . Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2001. Print.

Weatherford, McIver. Indian givers: how the Indians of the America transformed the world . New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1988. Print.

Williamson, Thames. Problems in American Democracy . Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Print.

• Democracy Arguments For and Against
• Pluralism and Elitism
• The UK Parliament and Democratic Legislature
• Fascist Elements in Dictatorial Ideas of Mussolini and Hitler
• Francesca’s Kitchen Business in Netherlands and China
• Scholars on Postmodernism as Social Theory
• Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses
• Analysis of Hugo Chavez and Muamar Gaddafi's Reign Through Machiavelli's Eye
• Machiavelli’s Views on Democratization and Their Relation to Modern Politics
• "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, March 14). Democracy as the Best Form of Government. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-as-the-best-form-of-government/

"Democracy as the Best Form of Government." IvyPanda , 14 Mar. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-as-the-best-form-of-government/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Democracy as the Best Form of Government'. 14 March.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Democracy as the Best Form of Government." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-as-the-best-form-of-government/.

1. IvyPanda . "Democracy as the Best Form of Government." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-as-the-best-form-of-government/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Democracy as the Best Form of Government." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-as-the-best-form-of-government/.

• Democracy Is The Best Form Of Government: Arguments For And Against

• There are actually two types of democracy: direct democracy and indirect democracy.
• Democracy was born in Athens, Greece in 5th century BC.
• The 20th century was marked by an expansion in representative democracy.

What is democracy ? You probably hear this term in history or civics courses but take it for granted because it is such a common political system today. In 2013, it was reported that 123 countries in the world can be considered democracies. However, democracies were not always common. This governing system became more popular after World War I . Before the spread of democracy, colonial empires were commonplace. Colonial empires were systems of government that were ruled by kings, queens, or autocratic leaders. World War II was one of the only 20th century periods during which democracies did not expand, but many former colonies declared independence after World War II and shifted to democratic systems. 

Ancient Greek Democracy

Democracy may have become a popular way for countries to govern themselves during the 20th century, but the ideas of democracy were born in Greece . Athens, Greece operated under a democratic system in the 5th century BC, and other Greek cities and towns did the same. The idea was to have a government by the people. Direct democracy, where people met in assemblies and made decisions, was once a popular form of democracy. Direct democracy was more appropriate for smaller communities. Most countries in the world today operate under indirect democracy. People choose representatives to protect their interests in government. In either case, there are arguments for and against democracy. Many people who are for democracy say that this prevents one person from gaining too much power and becoming a dangerous authoritarian. Even so, there are people who are critical of democracy and it is worthwhile to examine why some people feel this way.

Where We Stand Today

A Pew Research Survey found that most people are in favor of a democracy, but some people would be open to alternative modes of government. Their findings show that some people would prefer a direct democracy where people govern themselves directly. However, some people actually support autocratic governments, and many people say they would be open to having a government that is run by experts who are competent. People with different levels of education favor certain types of governments over others. A country’s economic position can also affect people's opinions. Feelings about democracy can change depending on economic circumstances.

Key Definitions  

Here are some terms you should know:

• Monarchy : rule by a single person, usually because they were born into the position.
• Oligarchy : a government run by a few people.  
• Autocracy : a government with a singular head of state, usually with unlimited power.
• Fascism : a type of autocracy that puts the interests of a nation or race above others.  
• Communism : a political theory that fights against the ownership of private property, and in which things are owned by the public and available for use whenever others need them. 

Arguments for Democracy

Countries around the world embraced democracy in the 20th century, most notably after WWI and WWII. Prior to this shift, countries were ruled by oligarchies, monarchies, and self-appointed autocratic leaders. During World War II, the world saw the dangers of fascism and fascist leaders like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Democracy was supported because it allowed people to choose representatives with set term limits. Many citizens had seen how their countries were ravaged due to corruption and inequality caused by the rule of the few. Democracy was seen as a way to make sure no one person had too much power. Many democracies also wanted a free market. Before democracy, few people had control or say in the economy which allowed rulers and those in power to use their economic influence to silence critics or give large rewards to those who followed their lead. Democracies were seen as a way to decentralize the market, but many of the same forces that freed the market were imperative to the development of democracy. People need more resources and education in order to vote and make educated purchases or financial decisions. A free market allowed more people to improve their status, and the economic boom that occurred after WWII created favorable conditions for democracies that were born out of former dictatorships, autocracies, and monarchies.

Freedom of Speech

Experts and citizens often defend democracy because they say it allows people to speak freely and have the ability to criticize leaders they feel might not be doing what the public wants. In fascist regimes, people who criticized leaders were often punished, and many critics were tortured or executed. Philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn was a proponent of the link between democracy and free speech.  

Respect for Human Rights

Pro-democracy arguments also include a greater likelihood of respect for human rights. That is because people must vote to make changes to laws or statutes. Democratic leaders cannot solely make unilateral decisions, and there are often other branches of government that can step in if this occurs. This is supposed to encourage democratic governments to be transparent about their work. 

Checks on Power

Another common argument for democracy is that it allows citizens to be empowered to elect their representatives, which means that everyone is expected to compromise so that no one interest is considered more important. Elections are also a way to make sure leaders know there are limits to their power.

Debate and Exchange of Ideas

Democracies allow citizens to be exposed to various points of view before making their choice. This allows candidates, citizens, and stakeholders to have a proper debate about why they would better represent the people that elect them. Transparency in elections is also meant to promote peace because people are more likely to accept the results of a fairly-won election, even if the candidate that won is not the one they chose.

Arguments Against Democracy

There are also arguments against democracy. The Greek philosopher Socrates made some compelling arguments against democracy by birthright as early as 399 BC. It is important to consider the possible negatives when discussing democracy. 

Charismatic, but Unqualified Leadership

Socrates argued that people need to be equipped to vote during elections instead of going about the process without the right information. Socrates felt that people need to be rational about who they vote for, not that they should not have the right to vote. He warned that people may be swayed by leaders who seem to provide all the right answers or know what to say. Basically, Socrates said that people might vote for someone because of how the candidate makes them feel, not because the candidate is able to do the job correctly.

Democracy Might Devolve into Tyranny

Another Greek philosopher, Plato, was also critical of democracy. He examined five existing government styles and looked at the pros and cons of these systems in his famous book The Republic . His argument is that people become tired of systems such as oligarchy and then succumb to democracy because they are hungry for power. He felt that crumbling democratic societies are more easily able to transition into tyranny once democracy becomes unsustainable. 

There Might Be Reasonable Alternatives

At best, voting for the wrong person means that nothing gets done at the taxpayer’s expense. At worst, people are making an uninformed vote. Modern-day philosopher Jason Brennan echoes many of the warnings of Socrates, but he also created a new term to describe what he perceives as an ideal alternative to democracy: epistocracy. Brennan argues that people need to think about what they expect from the government and then become informed so they can choose representatives that accomplish the tasks their citizens want. He also argues for the “competence principle.” Voters should use their right and power to vote to the best of their ability in order to maintain their right to vote. Brennan also says that Singapore is a modern-day example of a technocracy . In a technocracy, experts run the government. 

More in Politics

Communist China vs The Falun Gong

What are ‘Red Flag’ Laws And How Can They Prevent Gun Violence?

The Most and Least Fragile States

What is the Difference Between Democrats and Republicans?

The Black Codes And Jim Crow Laws

Iroquois Great Law of Peace

United States-Iran Conflict

The War In Afghanistan

• Mobile Close Open Menu

Why Democracy is the Best We've Got

Mar 12, 2019

Alexandra Mork

International Student Essay Contest Winner

Stay updated on news, events, and more

Join our mailing list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may also like

FEB 6, 2023 • Article

Ethics, Escalation, and Engagement in Ukraine and Beyond

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

By Joel H. Rosenthal

MAY 3, 2022 • Article

Why Democracy vs. Autocracy Misses the Point

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

MAR 18, 2022 • Podcast

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

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

Ethics Empowered

Using the power of ethics to build a better world

Sign up for news & events

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

• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility Policy

Democracy Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on democracy.

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

Significance of a Democracy

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

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

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

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

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

India: A Democratic Country

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

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

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

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Download the App

Why is Democracy the Best Form of Government? 10 Reasons

• Post author: Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka ACMC
• Post published: October 27, 2021
• Post category: Scholarly Articles

10 Reasons Why Democracy Is The Best Form of Government: A country is nothing more than a massive community that, like any other, requires governance. For at least 5,000 years, people have had governments. It’s deeply embedded in our society and pervades our daily lives. You may have seen the news about a new bill, a new policy update, or other conversations centred on the government on social media or in publications from time to time. But, when you hear the word “government,” what do you think of? Do you think of words like “ politics ,” “ president ,” “ power ,” or even “ rules? ” It’s crucial to remember that defining government is the first step in learning about any government system.

RECOMMENDED: Meaning and Types of constitution

Table of Contents

Meaning of Government

Government refers to the authority that enacts/or enforces laws that ensure the smooth operation of a country in a secure and peaceful manner that is beneficial to its people, regardless of the structure or institutions in place, the group of individuals in command, or the method used.

As Aristotle once stated,  man is a political animal by nature. He creates and lives in a society with his peers, and he aspires to both dominate and be ruled. This is evident in the variety of approaches adopted to government systems throughout history.

They are, in general, government by a single person (autocracy, absolute monarchy), government by a few (oligarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, etc.), and government by the majority (democracy) (democracy), Democracy is the most common form of government in use today in majority of countries. In fact, in various countries around the world, it has proven to be the best both in theory and in practice.

The question, therefore, becomes: Why is democracy truly better than other forms of government? Why should “the people” have the power to rule? 

This article will explore the distinctive characteristics of democracy, which most people, regardless of their core political ideas, deem beneficial. The purpose of this article is to highlight ten reasons why democracy is the best form of government. So, let’s get started.

Why Democracy Is Considered The Best System of Government

The phrase “ democracy ” comes from two Greek words: “ demos ” (people) and “ kratia ” (ruling by or government). Democracy literally means “people’s government.” “Government of the people, by the people, for the people,” as Abraham Lincoln put it.

Democracy is a form of government in which inhabitants of a country exercise power through elected officials, direct voting, or a combination of the two in most circumstances.

“Democracy is the worst form of government save for all those other systems that have been tried from time to time,” Winston Churchill famously declared. Democracy has repeatedly demonstrated that it is the finest form of government, despite its flaws. Democracy is the bedrock of human liberty and economic success in many Western countries. Most thriving nations in the globe, such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Germany, use this form of governance. Apart from its successes in many countries, the failures of its adversarial systems, particularly autocracy and tyranny, in various parts of the world further the desire for democracy.

Also see: Ways of promoting national integrity in the country

Below are some reasons that support the notion that Democracy is the best form of government

1. Power Decentralization: Historically, concentrating too much power in the hands of a single person has had disastrous consequences. In a democracy, there is no centralized power that can dictate what the people can and can’t do. Every decision is determined by the popular vote, and the people wield the power. In this way, abuse of power is prevented and the people can hold their government accountable.

2. It Promotes Equality: Everyone is equal before the law, and everyone has the right to vote, This is one of democracy’s foundational principles. The framework of democracy gives each vote equal weight during an election.

When a person registers for this process, they have the right to vote without being scrutinized and express an opinion regardless of their social or economic status. Anything “ yes ” or “no” counts as one, whether you are wealthy or poor, own land or don’t, or express your gender in a certain way.

3. The rights and Interests of the People are Protected: All government structures are subject to manipulation when individuals wield positions of power. In authoritarian regimes, examples of mass brutalization of populations, extrajudicial killings, and other forms of injustice are prevalent. However, in a democracy, such news is rarely heard because citizens are the majority and they hold power.

Democracies make it impossible for elected politicians to ignore the needs of the broader public. It pushes them to represent the requirements of each community so that everyone has an equal chance to achieve their goals. As a result, the people’s rights and interests are safeguarded and enabled in an acceptable manner and according to the laws governing the land.

Recommended: Key Pilars of every democratic government explained

4. It Establishes Legitimacy: Because voters choose who will be in control and how policies are created, democracy generates a suitable political structure for every person. A democratic government is genuine, authentic, and acceptable since it comes into power through popular vote and in line with legal conditions.

This is critical because it provides citizens with a sense of belonging and responsibility, as well as the confidence to objectively oppose unfavourable government decisions through recalls and protests.

5. It fosters a Sound Decision-Making Process: In a democracy, the decision-making process is thoroughly vetted and scrutinized. When a bill is introduced in the legislature, for example, it must go through extensive debate and public hearings before becoming a bill, and it must also receive executive approval before becoming law.

Even if it passes into law but is later shown to be illegal due to procedural faults, the courts have the authority to declare the statute null and void and of no effect.

Also see: Talent and Hardworking, Which is More Important to succeed (Debate)

6. It Reduces conflict and Wars: Democracy is the most statistically significant factor in reducing inter-and intra-state conflict. This is most likely because war, in whatever form, is politically unpopular because it costs human lives, therefore democracies are compelled to avoid it at all costs.

Civil wars are less likely in democracies because democratic governments act as a safety valve for dissatisfied citizens; whereas citizens in democracies can express their dissatisfaction through free speech or voting, citizens in autocracies have no choice but to resort to violence if they want governmental change due to a lack of political power.

7. High Level of Freedom: Individual liberty is abundant in a democratic society. People in democracies are typically free to do whatever they choose as long as they do not harm others or break local laws. As a result, people can freely express themselves through speech, cultural or religious values, and so on.

In dictatorships, on the other hand, freedom is severely limited since tyrants frequently oppose individual liberty because they fear revolt if citizens become too informed of what is happening in their country. The democratic structures provide the common people with the opportunity to pursue any outcome they desire. As a result, growth and stability are fostered across the board.

8. It Increases Civic Engagement Since It Gives people a chance to become personally involved with their Government: In a democracy, the people and their voices control the government, therefore each person can choose his or her fate. People have the right to vote according to their moral convictions. Every ballot is a chance to express one’s unique viewpoint. Unless there is a strong moral objection to the result, the vote matters in a democracy, whether or not that voice is heard by the majority.

Also see: Significant features of democracy you should know

9. It ensures smooth transition of Power: In democratic countries, the transition from one political leader to the next is usually relatively seamless and trouble-free. This makes it possible to sustain a country’s political and social stability.

Other political regimes, on the other hand, frequently assassinate or chase away political leaders through revolutions, resulting in a vacuum of political authority and significant degrees of instability in the respective country.

10. It is a flexible System of Government: Democracy is a dynamic process that develops and evolves, and it can take numerous forms. Democracy’s strength is its ability to adapt over time. Because of its flexible nature, it aids the government in adapting to changing viewpoints.

Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka, ACMC, is a lawyer and a certified mediator/conciliator in Nigeria. He is also a developer with knowledge in various programming languages. Samuel is determined to leverage his skills in technology, SEO, and legal practice to revolutionize the legal profession worldwide by creating web and mobile applications that simplify legal research. Sam is also passionate about educating and providing valuable information to people.

This Post Has One Comment

Very helpful

Comments are closed.

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

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

Verification Code

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

Thanks for your comment !

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

Essay on Democracy in 100, 300 and 500 Words

• Updated on  
• Jan 15, 2024

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

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

This Blog Includes:

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

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

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

Also Read: Essay on Yoga Day

Also Read: Speech on Yoga Day

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

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

Must Read : Consumer Rights in India

Must Read: Democracy and Diversity Class 10

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

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

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

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

Also Read: Difference Between Democracy and Dictatorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Must Read: Democracy and Diversity Class 10 Notes

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

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

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

Related Articles

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

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Contact no. *

Very helpful essay

Thanks for your valuable feedback

Thank you so much for informing this much about democracy

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

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

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

TED is supported by ads and partners 00:00

Why democracy is still the best form of government

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Debate on Democracy the Best Form of Government | Is Democracy the Best form of Government?

March 7, 2022 by Prasanna

Is Democracy the best form of Government?

Yes, Democracy is the best form of government because it enhances the dignity of the people, improves the quality of decision-making, and provides a method to resolve conflicts.

Debate on Democracy is the best form of Government

Honorable Chief Guest, respected judges, and all the esteemed audience present here. A very warm welcome. And good morning to everyone. I will be speaking in favour of the motion in the Debate on Democracy is the best form of Government. There are many types of Government practiced all over the country like Democracy, oligarchies, monarchies, and self-appointed autocratic leaders and many more. But in my opinion, Democracy is the best. And in my Debate, Debate on Democracy is the best form of Government. I will convey this truth with my various research on it.

You can also find more  Debate Writing  articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

What is Democracy?

Democracy means the rule of people. Means a form of government that is of the people for the people and by the people. Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally in electing a government leader either directly or through elected representatives. Democracy is the best form of government simply because no other form of government proved its potential. Democracy may have its drawbacks but in all, it works very fluidly. Some plus points of having a democratic form of government are freedom, dignity to the people, a representative elected by the people respect and promote human rights, people are equally treated, people can voice their opinion and many more benefits. All this proves that there is no other alternative form of government better than a democracy.

In the Debate on Democracy is the best form of Government, let us cover these points in detail.

Countries around the world embraced democracy in the 20th century, most notably after World War I and World War II. Prior to this, countries were ruled by oligarchies, monarchies, and self-appointed autocratic leaders. During World War II, the world saw the drawbacks of fascism and fascist leaders like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Democracy was supported because it allowed people to choose representatives on their own. Democracy was seen as a way to make sure no one person had too much power so there is no corruption and inequality caused by the rule of few.

Before democracy, few people had the power to use their economic influence or give large rewards to those who followed their lead.

A free market allowed more people to improve their status and the economic boom that occurred after World War II created favorable conditions for democracies that were born out of former dictatorships, autocracies, and monarchies.

In fascist regimes, people who criticized leaders and rulers or spoke against them were often punished, and many critics were tortured or executed. But it allows people to speak freely and allows them to criticize leaders they feel might not be doing what the public wants.

Debate on Democracy is the best form of Government, points out that Democracy respects human rights. Democratic leaders cannot solely make unilateral decisions. But must walk with other branches of government too. This shows how democratic governments are transparent about their work.

In my Debate On Democracy is the best form of Government I want to highlight another common argument for democracy is that it allows citizens to be empowered to elect their representatives, which means that everyone is considered more important and treated equally. Elections are also a way by which leaders know that there are limits to their power.

Democracies allow citizens to explore various points of view before making their choice. Candidates, citizens, and stakeholders must have a proper debate about why they would better represent the people that elect them. People have to accept the results of an election, even if the candidate that won is not the one they chose.Transparency in elections is also meant to promote peace.

A non-democratic government may sometimes even not respond to the people’s needs. Rulers cannot be forced in any case. They don’t even act. Whereas in democratic government, it is important for the rulers to attend to the needs of the people. Hence, it’s the best form of government.

In a democratic government when a decision is taken it involves more people, several discussions, consultation & meetings. It improves the quality of decision-making. In a diverse society, like India, people are bound to have differences of opinions and interests. To figure out these differences, democracy is the only known solution as there is no permanent winner and no permanent loser.

In a democracy, mistakes are bound to happen like in any other form of government, but it can’t be hidden for a long time. Public discussions and corrections always have space in democratic government. Either the rulers have to change their decisions or the rulers will be changed by the people. Hence it allows us to correct our mistakes.

So I conclude my debate on Democracy is the best form of Government by the conclusion that today, modern democracy is the best form of power for ruling any country, whether rich or poor, educated or uneducated one all are equal. One should always strive towards a liberal democracy, which is the best of all governments. The most humane way of ruling people with governance is also called the democratic republic form.

FAQ’s on Debate on Democracy the Best Form of Government

Question 1. Why is democracy the best form of government?

Answer: Democracy is the best form of government because of the following reasons

• The rulers of the nation are elected by the people themselves.
• It is a government of the people run by and for the people.
• It improves the quality of decision-making.
• It can successfully deal with differences and conflicts.
• It enhances the dignity of citizens.
• It allows us to correct our mistakes if they are wrong.

Question 2. Why do we need Democracy?

Answer: We need Democracy as it ensures the proper functioning of the government. People collectively discuss and make decisions and this improves the quality of decision making. Democracy provides a solution to any problems because decisions that are taken by mutual consent are followed and respected by all. As there is a space for public discussions, mistakes cannot remain hidden from the people for long. If the representatives of the people do not change their incorrect decisions, they may not get elected by the people next

Question 3. What are the advantages of a Democratic Government?

Answer: Advantages of Democratic Government are:

• A democratic government is a more responsible and stronger form of government.
• The standard of making decisions is improved.
• The integrity of people is strengthened.
• The wealthy and educated, the poor and less educated all are equally treated.
• It helps us to correct our own faults.
• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Democracy Essay for Students in English

Essay on Democracy

Introduction.

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

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

What are the Challenges:

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

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

Principles of Democracy:

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

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

Let us Discuss These Five Principles in Further Detail

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

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

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

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

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

Merits of Democracy:

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

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

provide a method to deal with differences and conflicts.

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

Factors Affect Democracy:

capital and civil society

economic development

modernization

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

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

FAQs on Democracy Essay for Students in English

1. What are the Features of Democracy?

Features of Democracy are as follows

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

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

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

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

2. Define Democracy?

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

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

3. What are the Benefits of Democracy?

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

It is more accountable

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Write about the five principles of Democracy?

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

Democracy Is the Best Form of Government

Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Essentially that democracy has many flaws and problems but all the others have more problems. Now authoritarian countries such as China are potentially challenging this assumption by proving that authoritarian regimes are better at creating economic growth. Is Democracy still the best form of government?

All the Yes points:

Represents the people, better governance due to transparency, respect of human rights, promotes human rights, all the no points:, economic growth, increasingly about money, electorate is not motivated, yes because….

Democratic states nearly always have freer people than autocratic states. They obviously have the right to vote for their government so by extension deciding the policy of their nation and what their nation should be like. They have more freedom of speech and expression than in autocracies. In particular they are free to criticise their own government.

No because…

Except for the freedom to choose the government there is no reason why people cannot be as free under an autocracy as in a democracy.

The biggest virtue of Democracy is that it is government by the people for the people. The government represents the views of the people who elect them and can throw them out if the government does things that the people do not like. Unlike other forms of government democracy is about the little man, everyone rather than the elite that are often disconnected from how everyone else lives their lives.

Democracy does not do very well at representing the people. In first past the post systems a government may not even have the support of a majority of those who voted not even including that many will not have votes and many more will not have the vote. This means that it is often a small minority of the population who determines which party gets in to government. Once they are there they are rarely representative of the people as they have several years to do what they like. Yes they need to think about re-election but that simply means they need to do more that the people like than the people dislike (or else have a good advertising campaign).

Democracy is as much about having checks and balances to the executive and having transparency of decision-making as it is about elections and the populace throwing governments out of power. In a democracy the parliament, the media and sometimes the judiciary all keep an eye on the executive and what is being done with the people’s money. They are therefore able to see if the executive is doing things that are detrimental to the country, are immoral, or even illegal. This can then be brought to a halt. Even where such actions are not visible on the surface there are separate institutions that have the power to investigate the executive and watch any ‘secret’ deals or actions that are going on away from public view.

While this is mostly found in democracy it is not something that has to be exclusive to democracies. Autocracies can potentially be transparent and have checks and balances they however often do not simply because an autocracy often has the time, and the willingness to use force to prevent these from occurring.

Democracy as much it is understood, is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. If democracy is put at it appropriate performance, then, all facet of human rights is respected. The citizens would have the rights to exercise freedom of speech concerning the well-being of the populace in areas of the economy, education, health, infrastructural development, etc.

It is impossible for a state to accommodate all conflicting views on a subject. Thus, majority rule is practiced. This puts the rights of minorities into jeopardy.

As much as Democracy is understood, it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The ability of the people to have a voice in the running of the State, in the economy, health, education, infrastructural development, etc creates a bit-balanced environment for governance to thrive; this can only be achieved in a democratic governance.

Autocracies are better at big projects, they can get things done and as such they are likely to be better at creating economic growth if they have the will. In an autocracy there are not the avenues for dissent that can block building projects, the police or troops can be used to clear protests that in the west would slow down large infrastructure projects. As a consequence of this all the infrastructure that is needed to create a modern economy can be produced quicker and cheaper than would be the case in a democracy. Also the resource base of the country can be accessed faster (no pesky environmentalists preventing drilling and mining!) and used more efficiently.

This is not the case. The most developed and richest countries are all democracies. While they may well have been developing their democracies during their initial industrialisation democracy and the freedom it brings is increasingly necessary for economic growth once the country has moved to being mostly dependent upon services rather than manufacturing or natural resource exploitation for economic growth. Once this occurs then creativity becomes important and the freedoms associated with democracy are needed to foster this creativity that is needed for industries such as information technology, creative arts, research and development etc.

In some countries democracy seems to be increasingly about money. The U.S. is the obvious example where millions are spent on elections with big events and glitzy advertising campaigns. This is not what democracy should be about and it discourages other countries from moving along the path to democracy. Indeed it undermines the very idea of democracy. Democracy when money is involved to the extent that it is in the U.S.A. becomes elitist and corporatist because only the elite and rich businessmen can afford to fund the campaigns for congress let alone for the presidency. The 2008 campaign for the White House cost $1.6 billion and the whole 2008 election including senate and house of representatives races cost $5.3 billion. Autocracies obviously avoid this immense expense by avoiding elections.

You can drag the electorate to the ballot box if you like but you cannot make them interested in most of the topics. It’s an idea that seems appealing if your are one of those people who is interested (I would love it), but if you try to discuss political issues with most people they either change the subject or nod politely without comment. A lot of people are also keen to express their views, but clearly haven’t done any research into their validity. An elected representative can take more time to consider the idea, discuss it with peers, and explain themselves if it is contrary to popular opinion. Of course, most politicians are weasels and will support popular opinion over educated opinion, but the result of this is no worse than direct democracy.

On the point of economic growth, in disagreement with the ‘Yes’ argument:

The richest and most developed countries were not full democracies until after World War I. The USA is no exception, even if the USA got to a full democracy earlier than most. The only reason they are rich is because of centuries of conquest and domination over the rest of the world, whose people were never given the same rights as the people who conquered them.

Spain, which is still technically a Kingdom, would never have been anything if not for its conquest of the Aztec and Incan Empires. The UK (note that the K stands for Kingdom) would never have been anything without first its American colonies, and then its empire on which the sun never set. The USA would have been nothing if it had not relentlessly murdered its way westward, all the way to the Philippines, and then had the good fortune of Europe owing it a lot of money at the end of World War II.

Did democracy bring these countries wealth? No. Colonialism and war brought them wealth, and then the newly rich people began to ask for more rights, and thus democracy was created.

Democracy is dumb. Democracy suggests that people are wise enough to rule (or choose a ruler) a nation. And that is not true in the slightest. If the majority of people voted and there was no restrictions on advertisement, most of the people would vote for the guy who promised free taco for everyone. People are greedy and dumb, and the people who are willing and/or wise enough to vote are much less than the people who don’t understand or aren’t interested in politics, which leads to corruption or incompetence. A fair voting would involve only the men and women who understand the nature of politics and are interested and confident in taking matters into their own hands. But that would undermine the fundamental principle of democracy; “The people run the country”. In this case, the ‘people’ won’t run the country. The country would be run by competent, willing people who have control over their nerves, and that is not democracy anymore, it’s aristocracy

yes democracy is the best form of government since it delivers a better quality of life. Most people are being exploited because there countries are not practicing democracy. Everyone’s thouhts or way of leaving deserves to be expressed

Everyone’s thoughts? That simply is not true. Whatever culture it is that is in question will determine who gets a voice and who does not. Children do not vote, criminals do not vote, and the insane do not vote, to name some examples. We can name these categories of non-voters and we say that it seems reasonable but that is because our culture has decided that it is reasonable. The real danger of democracy is in the freedom for “everyone” to have a voice. There are plenty of people who can legally vote but ethically should not. As education continues to decline, especially in western countries, people will be less and less qualified to make intelligent decisions. Simply put, many people simply do not have the intelligence or wisdom to make assessments about the categories of politics, society and ethics.

Democracy is based on the idea that ALL Citizens have the same rights within the Government and the laws it creates, everyone. The problem is when the Government creates laws or programs that single out one class of people from others. If a law is created, it applies to All citizens (with exception to laws to handle Non-Citizens). The Punishment for a crime is also handed out, in as much as it can, with equal results. When the Government creates a program, these programs should apply to ALL citizens. A good example is our tax laws. Seems one class of citizen has no choice but to pay, but others have loop holes granted to them by our Government where they pay nothing. For this to be Democratic, a single tax payer system is required. You cannot segregate citizens needs without segregating the citizens themselves. This will create a climate of “He who yells the loudest, gets the most attention (or bennefits).”. You will create divisions within Democracy where it’s meaning differs to the different classes. Democracy survives with unity, not division. If Democracy fails, we enter Dictatorship or Socialism where we are told what to do, accept class separation, and loose the power for future changes.

I like democracy because it theoretically gives me a say in my government. But in reality representatives rarely represent me. I didn’t want us to attack Iraq after I looked at the info that was available in the internet, books, and the media but we did, twice. I wanted universal health care and we don’t. I wanted access to national forests to remain free to everyone, supported by our taxes and it isn’t. We get breadcrumbs from our government representatives, and spin from their paid advisors, attempting to convince us what to think is good for us rather acting to fulfill what we the people want and need. Democracies especially ones like the us seem to get into as many stupid wars as banana dictatorships. So I can’t even say that democracies are more peaceful. At least with a democracy you don’t have to have an arrogant ruler who mostly kisses up to the wealthy and powerful aristocrats and his own family. Oh, wait…

Democracy is a method for taking decisions. Decisions are taken by voting. This has nothing to do with freedom. At this moment in time, there are no democracies on Earth where people are suppressed as slaves, but it is very well possible and well within reach. Simply put: two wolves and a sheep vote what they will have for dinner. That is the other face of democracy. The sheep has all the freedom to vote, right? Democracy is all about the majority. The minority has very little to say. Suppose that a muslim leader is elected in the USA and he turns the USA into a bad tyrant country and changes all the laws. I know that’s not gonna happen anytime soon, because much less than half of the population is muslim. But let’s just say that changes in the future (can you predict the future?) and about 50% of the population is muslim and votes for a muslim leader. In that case you have no right to complain, because it was a fair and free election. Although this was just an illustrative example, please don’t ever say “it’s not gonna happen anyway”. A hundred years ago, if you talked about walking on the surface of the moon, you would hear people say “Stop talking rubbish – moon landings are never going to happen anyway”. Want another disadvantage? Democratic countries have elections every now and than. Clinton didn’t want Guantanamo Bay. Bush did want it, and Obama doesn’t want it but can’t abolish it. What will the future bring for Guantanamo Bay? There is no long term planning because all leaders have different opinions. Long term planning is really needed when it comes to retirement laws/tax/deductions, mortgage laws etc. Just look at the national debt of a democratic country and you will see it only increases (not counting glitches), because democratic leaders make budget plans for the next year only. This means national debt will only increase and economic cuts will also increase when you have democracy. You choose for democracy, you choose for debts.

The example where you suggest that a Muslim Leader will “ turn USA into a BAD TYRANT country and change all laws”. Is that really your mindset? That Muslims are uneducated, cruel people and cannot be leaders? Please get your facts straight before you post something on the internet which frankly isn’t true. Furthermore, I don’t understand if you are for or against this topic as you gave a lengthy paragraph about how Muslim Leaders would not be fit for elections and then say: please don’t say it won’t happen anyway. Please. Gather. Facts. Period

yes democracy is good because This is not the case. The most developed and richest countries are all democracies. While they may well have been developing their democracies during their initial industrialisation democracy and the freedom it brings is increasingly necessary for economic growth once the country has moved to being mostly dependent upon services rather than manufacturing or natural resource exploitation for economic growth. Once this occurs then creativity becomes important and the freedoms associated with democracy are needed to foster this creativity that is needed for industries such as information technology, creative arts, research and development etc.

democracy is not best but it is a better form of government than autocracy

If I may be so bold. IMO, assuming educated moral population the United States of America’s Constitutional REPUBLIC enacted 3/4/1789 is the best for of government ever divided by man. With the structure set forth, land mass matters not due to federalism. However, like any self governed [(ish) eg democracy or Republic] maintaining an educated and virtuous population is paramount to its perpetual existence. As of yet the average life span of most democracies is about 250 years. Facts are stubborn things.

Interesting article, I believe there is too much focus on the government and not the governed or territories involved. Read a lot covering good and bad tendencies in government giving favor to this form and that. Like in the real world, little consideration given to those subjected to said government. A educated, moral, civil society will thrive in a Demacracy. Whereas less organized “survival of fittest” populated land would require more iron fisted control to maintain order, such people would fall into chaos every time in a democracy. What kind of land? Large spanning continent with diverse lands or a city state or something in between?Both of these questions must be answered before one can logically assign the best form of government. With out this knowledge there can be only one answer “it depends on the governed”. Ironically IMO this article is a microcosm for how people think of these problems and questions in regard to government… No thought or regard for the subjugated people or the lands evolved.

Well in times where we discuss what is less evil, democracy is best. No doubt it has numerous flaws, and the basic, in my view, is that in democracy we count heads not wisdom!! A voter should have certain qualities before being qualified as a voter. Such as he must be a university graduate. People with knowledge and true understanding of issues can take better decision than those who are illiterate. The principle of adult franchise, on which most of the democracies are based, is wrong. Collective wisdom of the learned people is better than the confused, whimsical and fervent decision of the many.

All forms of government have their flaws, but overall, democracy has less. That doesn’t necessarily make it ‘the best’, but I believe that democracy is statistically proven to be a more effective form of government. As long as the citizens are happy, and human rights aren’t being ignored, democracy is my government.

True democracy in my opinion is the best form of government, the trouble is a lot of so called democracies use a first post the post system which rarely gives a result reletive to what was voted for. Also countries should encourage participation by teaching children about civics and politics from an early age to increse enthusiasm. People should stop linking systems of government with economic success, I can make arguments both for and against as to whether democrocy is best in achieving this but regardless surely freedom to choose is the main benefit. Who in there right mind would want to live in a country where you have no input into how your country should be managed.

i understand democracy as something that gives weak same chance as the strong-mahatma gandhi

Because democracy is by the people for the people and of the people it means the power of the people

democracy is good and bad. if used properly its the best but if misused its the worst. currently its being extremely misused which is leading to security problems, corruption, economic loss etc. the good part is people can overthrow the govt. and they should do so if they feel the leaders are misusing their powers

I believe that there really is no better or worse form of government. It all really depends on the situation that the country is in. Take for example the in India. In a situation like that, autocracy would be the better form of government because they can act quickly. However, if you lived in an autocratic country where the citizens didn’t like what the leader was doing, too bad. It has the ability to keep doing what it was doing. In a democratic country, its the citizens who control the government.

Very true, yet Democracy is slowly falling away. The USA seems to be swallowed (very slowly) through medical services by Socialism, so is it better? It IS dying…

This page is interesting. All the points are well stated, but democracy has obviously devolved into a worse government than it was intended to be.

it would have been worse with some other form of government.

Maybe, but the monarch would have quick and absolute speed. No need to get the order constitutionilized; just send the army already! Democracy is obviously not the best form of government.

democracy is good and bad both but i think more good . lets take an example , we the ppl of india are getting the right to vote !! right to freedom of speech and expressions . right to reside in a any part of the country .. !! isnt that a big thing DEMOCRACY IS BETTER THAN AUTOCRACY …

i live in the U.S which has a democracy since day one they always say liberty and justice for all but manage to exterminate an entire race of people and keep another in a perpetual state of slavery for than a 100 years when they agreed to free them in 20 and then continue to deny them basic rights and liberties to this present day.

but why autocracy is the bad? I don’t agree a bit here because sometimes power hungry leaders take advantages if it and mostly for developing countries autocracy is an ideal form of govt.

democracy is the best.has any other form of government worked

i think democracy is better than autocracy, but sometimes autocracy better than democracy. you see like many of them affected in the form of democracy. take an example of delhi student raped and murdered. autocratic country like china always maintain a GDP rate level high.

I support u gentleman. Democracy is that form of government that recognize each and every citizen as one.It improves the quality of decision making.

Democracy is a method for taking decisions. Decisions are taken by voting. This has nothing to do with freedom. At this moment in time, there are no democracies on Earth where people are suppressed as slaves, but it is very well possible and well within reach. Simply put: two wolves and a sheep vote what they will have for dinner. That is the other face of democracy. The sheep has all the freedom to vote, right? Democracy is all about the majority. The minority has very little to say. Suppose that a muslim leader is elected in the USA and he turns the USA into a bad tyrant country and changes all the laws. I know that’s not gonna happen anytime soon, because much less than half of the population is muslim. But let’s just say that changes in the future (can you predict the future?) and about 50% of the population is muslim and votes for a muslim leader. In that case you have no right to complain, because it was a fair and free election. Although this was just an illustrative example, please don’t ever say “it’s not gonna happen anyway”. A hundred years ago, if you talked about walking on the surface of the moon, you would hear people say “Stop talking rubbish – moon landings are never going to happen anyway”. Want another disadvantage? Democratic countries have elections every now and than. Clinton didn’t want Guantanamo Bay. Bush did want it, and Obama doesn’t want it but can’t abolish it. What will the future bring for Guantanamo Bay? There is no long term planning because all leaders have different opinions. Long term planning is really needed when it comes to retirement laws/tax/deductions, mortgage laws etc. Just look at the national debt of a democratic country and you will see it only increases (not counting glitches), because democratic leaders make budget plans for the next year only. This means national debt will only increase and economic cuts will also increase when you have democracy. You choose for democracy, you choose for debts.

Most democracies are constitutional democracies that include protections for minorities or individuals that supersedes simple majority votes. Wolves having sheep for dinner would violate most democratic constitutions.

There is no empirical evidence that non democratic rule results in wiser decision making even for economic issues. Cuba and North Korea may not have big debts, but even if they suffered the “evil debts” of democracy it is clear they would economically be better of. Do you know a country without democracy that you think provides better lives, even just economically for its citizens as a whole?

What about democracy as a “tyranny of the majority”? Obamacare, as an example, passed with no support from opposition party.

Democracy is the best form of govt. as it is based on discussions and opinions..

First thing different countries have different democracies.If you are talking about parliamentary discussions,it is hardly of any significance,because a majority party is always there. Also at the most what it do,just halt the process of decision making.A monarchy with philospher/learned king like Rama,krishna,Bharta,chandergupta etc, is best form of democracy

Why is democracy considered the best form of government?

Answer: democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. one chief factor common to all democracies is that the government is chosen by the people. it also helps students to demarcate between democratic and non-democratic governments. why democracy is the best form of government democracy is the best form of government due to the following reasons the rulers of the nation are elected by the public. it is a government which is accountable to the people democracy improves the quality of decision-making. democracy provides a method to deal with differences and conflicts. democracy enhances the dignity of citizens. democracy is better than other forms of government because it allows us to correct our own mistakes..

Why democracy is considered as best form of government ?

• The Boardroom
• Curriculum Materials
• Sponsorship/Tribute Journal
• Bill of Rights in Action

BRIA 20 2 c Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau on Government

Spring 2004 (20:2), developments in democracy.

BRIA 20:2 Home | How Women Won the Right to Vote | Have Women Achieved Equality? | Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau on Government

Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau on Government

Starting in the 1600s, European philosophers began debating the question of who should govern a nation. As the absolute rule of kings weakened, Enlightenment philosophers argued for different forms of democracy.

In 1649, a civil war broke out over who would rule England—Parliament or King Charles I. The war ended with the beheading of the king. Shortly after Charles was executed, an English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), wrote Leviathan , a defense of the absolute power of kings. The title of the book referred to a leviathan, a mythological, whale-like sea monster that devoured whole ships. Hobbes likened the leviathan to government, a powerful state created to impose order.

Hobbes began Leviathan by describing the “state of nature” where all individuals were naturally equal. Every person was free to do what he or she needed to do to survive. As a result, everyone suffered from “continued fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man [was] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

In the state of nature, there were no laws or anyone to enforce them. The only way out of this situation, Hobbes said, was for individuals to create some supreme power to impose peace on everyone.

Hobbes borrowed a concept from English contract law: an implied agreement. Hobbes asserted that the people agreed among themselves to “lay down” their natural rights of equality and freedom and give absolute power to a sovereign. The sovereign, created by the people, might be a person or a group. The sovereign would make and enforce the laws to secure a peaceful society, making life, liberty, and property possible. Hobbes called this agreement the “social contract.”

Hobbes believed that a government headed by a king was the best form that the sovereign could take. Placing all power in the hands of a king would mean more resolute and consistent exercise of political authority, Hobbes argued. Hobbes also maintained that the social contract was an agreement only among the people and not between them and their king. Once the people had given absolute power to the king, they had no right to revolt against him.

Hobbes warned against the church meddling with the king’s government. He feared religion could become a source of civil war. Thus, he advised that the church become a department of the king’s government, which would closely control all religious affairs. In any conflict between divine and royal law, Hobbes wrote, the individual should obey the king or choose death.

But the days of absolute kings were numbered. A new age with fresh ideas was emerging—the European Enlightenment .

Enlightenment thinkers wanted to improve human conditions on earth rather than concern themselves with religion and the afterlife. These thinkers valued reason, science, religious tolerance, and what they called “natural rights”—life, liberty, and property.

Enlightenment philosophers John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all developed theories of government in which some or even all the people would govern. These thinkers had a profound effect on the American and French revolutions and the democratic governments that they produced.

Locke: The Reluctant Democrat

John Locke (1632–1704) was born shortly before the English Civil War. Locke studied science and medicine at Oxford University and became a professor there. He sided with the Protestant Parliament against the Roman Catholic King James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1685. This event reduced the power of the king and made Parliament the major authority in English government.

In 1690, Locke published his Two Treatises of Government . He generally agreed with Hobbes about the brutality of the state of nature, which required a social contract to assure peace. But he disagreed with Hobbes on two major points.

First, Locke argued that natural rights such as life, liberty, and property existed in the state of nature and could never be taken away or even voluntarily given up by individuals. These rights were “inalienable” (impossible to surrender). Locke also disagreed with Hobbes about the social contract. For him, it was not just an agreement among the people, but between them and the sovereign (preferably a king).

According to Locke, the natural rights of individuals limited the power of the king. The king did not hold absolute power, as Hobbes had said, but acted only to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people. If a sovereign violated these rights, the social contract was broken, and the people had the right to revolt and establish a new government. Less than 100 years after Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government , Thomas Jefferson used his theory in writing the Declaration of Independence .

Although Locke spoke out for freedom of thought, speech, and religion, he believed property to be the most important natural right. He declared that owners may do whatever they want with their property as long as they do not invade the rights of others. Government, he said, was mainly necessary to promote the “public good,” that is to protect property and encourage commerce and little else. “Govern lightly,” Locke said.

Locke favored a representative government such as the English Parliament, which had a hereditary House of Lords and an elected House of Commons. But he wanted representatives to be only men of property and business. Consequently, only adult male property owners should have the right to vote. Locke was reluctant to allow the propertyless masses of people to participate in government because he believed that they were unfit.

The supreme authority of government, Locke said, should reside in the law-making legislature, like England’s Parliament. The executive (prime minister) and courts would be creations of the legislature and under its authority.

Montesquieu: The Balanced Democrat

When Charles Montesquieu (1689–1755) was born, France was ruled by an absolute king, Louis XIV. Montesquieu was born into a noble family and educated in the law. He traveled extensively throughout Europe, including England, where he studied the Parliament. In 1722, he wrote a book, ridiculing the reign of Louis XIV and the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

Montesquieu published his greatest work, The Spirit of the Laws , in 1748. Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Montesquieu believed that in the state of nature individuals were so fearful that they avoided violence and war. The need for food, Montesquieu said, caused the timid humans to associate with others and seek to live in a society. “As soon as man enters into a state of society,” Montesquieu wrote, “he loses the sense of his weakness, equality ceases, and then commences the state of war.”

Montesquieu did not describe a social contract as such. But he said that the state of war among individuals and nations led to human laws and government.

Montesquieu wrote that the main purpose of government is to maintain law and order, political liberty, and the property of the individual. Montesquieu opposed the absolute monarchy of his home country and favored the English system as the best model of government.

Montesquieu somewhat misinterpreted how political power was actually exercised in England. When he wrote The Spirit of the Laws , power was concentrated pretty much in Parliament, the national legislature. Montesquieu thought he saw a separation and balancing of the powers of government in England.

Montesquieu viewed the English king as exercising executive power balanced by the law-making Parliament, which was itself divided into the House of Lords and the House of Commons, each checking the other. Then, the executive and legislative branches were still further balanced by an independent court system.

Montesquieu concluded that the best form of government was one in which the legislative, executive, and judicial powers were separate and kept each other in check to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful. He believed that uniting these powers, as in the monarchy of Louis XIV, would lead to despotism. While Montesquieu’s separation of powers theory did not accurately describe the government of England, Americans later adopted it as the foundation of the U.S. Constitution .

Rousseau: The Extreme Democrat

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was born in Geneva, Switzerland, where all adult male citizens could vote for a representative government. Rousseau traveled in France and Italy, educating himself.

In 1751, he won an essay contest. His fresh view that man was naturally good and was corrupted by society made him a celebrity in the French salons where artists, scientists, and writers gathered to discuss the latest ideas.

A few years later he published another essay in which he described savages in a state of nature as free, equal, peaceful, and happy. When people began to claim ownership of property, Rousseau argued, inequality, murder, and war resulted.

According to Rousseau, the powerful rich stole the land belonging to everyone and fooled the common people into accepting them as rulers. Rousseau concluded that the social contract was not a willing agreement, as Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu had believed, but a fraud against the people committed by the rich.

In 1762, Rousseau published his most important work on political theory, The Social Contract . His opening line is still striking today: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Rousseau agreed with Locke that the individual should never be forced to give up his or her natural rights to a king.

The problem in the state of nature, Rousseau said, was to find a way to protect everyone’s life, liberty, and property while each person remained free. Rousseau’s solution was for people to enter into a social contract. They would give up all their rights, not to a king, but to “the whole community,” all the people. He called all the people the “sovereign,” a term used by Hobbes to mainly refer to a king. The people then exercised their “general will” to make laws for the “public good.”

Rousseau argued that the general will of the people could not be decided by elected representatives. He believed in a direct democracy in which everyone voted to express the general will and to make the laws of the land. Rousseau had in mind a democracy on a small scale, a city-state like his native Geneva.

In Rousseau’s democracy, anyone who disobeyed the general will of the people “will be forced to be free.” He believed that citizens must obey the laws or be forced to do so as long as they remained a resident of the state. This is a “civil state,” Rousseau says, where security, justice, liberty, and property are protected and enjoyed by all.

All political power, according to Rousseau, must reside with the people, exercising their general will. There can be no separation of powers, as Montesquieu proposed. The people, meeting together, will deliberate individually on laws and then by majority vote find the general will. Rousseau’s general will was later embodied in the words “We the people . . .” at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution.

Rousseau was rather vague on the mechanics of how his democracy would work. There would be a government of sorts, entrusted with administering the general will. But it would be composed of “mere officials” who got their orders from the people.

Rousseau believed that religion divided and weakened the state. “It is impossible to live in peace with people you think are damned,” he said. He favored a “civil religion” that accepted God, but concentrated on the sacredness of the social contract.

Rousseau realized that democracy as he envisioned it would be hard to maintain. He warned, “As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State, ‘What does it matter to me?’ the State may be given up for lost.”

For Discussion and Writing

• If the four philosophers discussed in this article, which two do you think differed the most? Why?
• Which of the democratic forms government proposed by Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau do you think is the best? Why?
• Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract , “As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State ‘What does it matter to me?’ the State may be given up for lost.” What do you think he meant? How do you think his words relate to American democracy today?

A C T I V I T Y

The philosophers take a stand.

• Divide the class into four groups, each taking on the role of Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, or Rousseau.  
• The members of each of the role group will need to research why their philosopher would agree or disagree with the debate topics listed below. The article contains some clues, but students should find out more about their philosophers’ views by using the school library and Internet.  
• After research has been completed, each role group will state its philosopher’s position on topic A. The groups should then debate the topic from the point of view of the philosopher they are role playing. Follow the same procedure for the rest of the topics.  
• After all the debates are finished, class members should discuss which one of the four philosophers they agree with the most and why.

Debate Topics

A.         The best form of government is a representative democracy.

B.         Only the president should have the power to declare war.

C.         A good way to make laws is for all the people to directly vote on them.

D.         Religion should be a part of the government.

E.         The government should have the authority to confiscate a person’s property for the public good.

For Further Information

Encyclopedia articles:

Wikipedia: Thomas Hobbes

Wikipedia: Leviathan

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Thomas Hobbes

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Hobbes’ Moral and Political Philosophy

  Malaspina Great Books: Thomas Hobbes

Leviathan Text of the book.

SparkNotes: Leviathan A study guide to the book.

Yahoo Directory: Thomas Hobbes

Google Directory: Thomas Hobbes

Open Directory Project: Thomas Hobbes

Wikipedia: John Locke

Bluplete Biography: John Locke

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: John Locke

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: John Locke

Wikipedia: Two Treatises of Government

  Second Treatise of Civil Government Text of the book.

SparkNotes: Locke’s Second Treatise of Government Two Treatises of Government A study guide.

Malaspina Great Books: John Locke

  Links:

Yahoo Directory: John Locke

Google Directory: John Locke

Open Directory Project: John Locke

Wikipedia: Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The Social Contract The text of the book.

SparkNotes: Rousseau’s Social Contract A study guide to the book.

Malaspina Great Books: Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Yahoo Directory: Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Google Directory: Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Open Directory Project: Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Montesquieu

  Encyclopedia articles:

Wikipedia: Montesquieu

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Montesquieu

Catholic Encyclopedia: Montesquieu

The Spirit of the Laws The text of the book.

Malaspina Great Books: Montesquieu

Yahoo Directory: Baron de Montesquieu

Google Directory: Montesquieu

Open Directory Project: Montesquieu

• Forgot Login?

• 404 Page Not Found
• Support CRF

What Is Democracy? Definition and Examples

• B.S., Texas A&M University

A democracy is a form of government that empowers the people to exercise political control, limits the power of the head of state, provides for the separation of powers between governmental entities, and ensures the protection of natural rights and civil liberties . In practice, democracy takes many different forms. Along with the two most common types of democracies—direct and representative—variants such as participatory, liberal, parliamentary, pluralist, constitutional, and socialist democracies are in use today.

Key Takeaways: Democracy

• Democracy, literally meaning “rule by the people,” empowers individuals to exercise political control over the form and functions of their government.
• While democracies come in several forms, they all feature competitive elections, freedom of expression , and protection of individual civil liberties and human rights.
• In most democracies, elected lawmakers charged with writing and voting on laws and setting policy represent the needs and wishes of the people.
• When creating laws and policies, the elected representatives in a democracy strive to balance conflicting demands and obligations to maximize freedom and protect individual rights.

Despite the prominence in the headlines of non-democratic, authoritarian states like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, democracy remains the world’s most commonly practiced form of government. In 2018, for example, a total of 96 out of 167 countries (57%) with populations of at least 500,000 were democracies of some type. Statistics show that the percentage of democracies among the world’s governments has been increasing since the mid-1970s, currently standing just short of its post- World War II high of 58% in 2016.

Democracy Definition

Meaning “rule by the people,” democracy is a system of government that not only allows but requires the participation of the people in the political process to function properly. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln , in his famed 1863 Gettysburg Address may have best defined democracy as a “…government of the people, by the people, for the people…”

Semantically, the term democracy comes from the Greek words for “people” (dēmos) and “rule” (karatos). However, achieving and preserving a government by the people—a “popular” government—is far more complicated than the concept’s semantic simplicity might imply. In creating the legal framework under which the democracy will function, typically a constitution, several crucial political and practical questions must be answered.

Is “rule by the people” even appropriate for the given state? Do the inherent freedoms of a democracy justify dealing with its complex bureaucracy and electoral processes, or would the streamlined predictability of a monarchy , for example, be preferable?

Assuming a preference for democracy, which residents of the country, state, or town should enjoy the political status of full citizenship? Simply stated, who are the “people” in the “government by the people” equation? In the United States, for example, the constitutionally established doctrine of birthright citizenship provides that any person born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. Other democracies are more restrictive in bestowing full citizenship.

Which people within the democracy should be empowered to participate in it? Assuming that only adults are allowed to fully participate in the political process, should all adults be included? For example, until the enactment of the 19th Amendment in 1920, women in the United States were not allowed to vote in national elections. A democracy that excludes too many of the governed from taking part in what is supposed to be their government runs the risk of becoming an aristocracy—government by a small, privileged ruling class—or an oligarchy —government by an elite, typically wealthy, few.

If, as one of the foundational principles of democracy holds, the majority rules, what will a “proper” majority be? A majority of all citizens or a majority of citizens who vote only? When issues, as they inevitably will, divide the people, should the wishes of the majority always prevail, or should, as in the case of the American Civil Rights Movement , minorities be empowered to overcome majority rule? Most importantly, what legal or legislative mechanisms should be created to prevent the democracy from becoming a victim of what one of America’s Founding Fathers , James Madison , called “the tyranny of the majority?”

Finally, how likely is it that a majority of the people will continue to believe that democracy is the best form of government for them? For a democracy to survive it must retain the substantial support of both the people and the leaders they choose. History has shown that democracy is a particularly fragile institution. In fact, of the 120 new democracies that have emerged around the world since 1960, nearly half have resulted in failed states or have been replaced by other, typically more authoritarian forms of government. It is therefore essential that democracies be designed to respond quickly and appropriately to the internal and external factors that will inevitably threaten them.

Democratic Principles

While their opinions vary, most political scientists agree that the majority of democracies are based on six foundational elements:

• Popular sovereignty: The principle that the government is created and maintained by the consent of the people through their elected representatives.
• An Electoral System: Since according to the principle of popular sovereignty, the people are the source of all political power, a clearly defined system of conducting free and fair elections is essential.
• Public Participation: Democracies rarely survive without the active participation of the people. Healthy democracies enable and encourage people to take part in their political and civic processes. 
• Separation of Powers: Based on a suspicion of power concentrated in a single individual—like a king—or group, the constitutions of most democracies provide that political powers be separated and shared among the various governmental entities.
• Human Rights: Along with their constitutionally enumerated rights and freedoms, democracies protect the human rights of all citizens. In this context, human rights are those rights considered inherent to all human beings, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other considerations.
• A Rule of Law: Also called due process of law , the rule of law is the principle that all citizens are accountable to laws that are publicly created and equitably enforced in a manner consistent with human rights by an independent judicial system.

Types of Democracy

Throughout history, more types of democracy have been identified than there are countries in the world. According to social and political philosopher Jean-Paul Gagnon, more than 2,234 adjectives have been used to describe democracy. While many scholars refer to direct and representative as the most common of these, several other types of democracies can be found around the world today. While direct democracy is unique, most other recognized types of democracy are variants of representative democracy. These various types of democracy are generally descriptive of the particular values emphasized by the representative democracies that employ them.

Originating in Ancient Greece during the 5th century BC, direct democracy , sometimes called “pure democracy,” is considered the oldest non-authoritarian form of government. In a direct democracy, all laws and public policy decisions are made directly by a majority vote of the people, rather than by the votes of their elected representatives.

Functionally possible only in small states, Switzerland is the only example of a direct democracy applied on a national level today. While Switzerland is no longer a true direct democracy, any law passed by the popularly elected national parliament can be vetoed by a direct vote of the public. Citizens can also change the constitution through direct votes on amendments. In the United States, examples of direct democracy can be found in state-level recall elections and lawmaking ballot initiatives .

Representative

Also called indirect democracy, representative democracy is a system of government in which all eligible citizens elect officials to pass laws and formulate public policy on their behalf. These elected officials are expected to represent the needs and viewpoints of the people in deciding the best course of action for the nation, state, or other jurisdiction as a whole.

As the most commonly found type of democracy in use today, almost 60% of all countries employ some form of representative democracy including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.

Participatory

In a participatory democracy, the people vote directly on policy while their elected representatives are responsible for implementing those policies. Participatory democracies rely on the citizens to set the direction of the state and the operation of its political systems. While representative and participatory democracies share similar ideals, participatory democracies tend to encourage a higher, more direct form of citizen participation than traditional representative democracies.

While there are no countries specifically classified as participatory democracies, most representative democracies employ citizen participation as a tool for social and political reform. In the United States, for example, so-called “grassroots” citizen participation causes such as the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s have led elected officials to enact laws implementing sweeping social, legal, and political policy changes.

Liberal democracy is loosely defined as a form of representative democracy that emphasizes the principles of classical liberalism —an ideology advocating the protection of individual civil liberties and economic freedom by limiting the power of the government. Liberal democracies employ a constitution, either statutorily codified, as in the United States, or uncodified, as in the United Kingdom, to define the powers of the government, provide for a separation of those powers, and enshrine the social contract .

Liberal democracies may take the form of a constitutional republic , like the United States, or a constitutional monarchy , such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.

Parliamentary

In a parliamentary democracy, the people directly elect representatives to a legislative parliament . Similar to the U.S. Congress , the parliament directly represents the people in making necessary laws and policy decisions for the country.

In parliamentary democracies, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan, the head of government is a prime minister, who is first elected to parliament by the people, and then elected prime minister by a vote of the parliament. However, the prime minister remains a member of the parliament and thus plays an active role in the legislative process of creating and passing laws. Parliamentary democracies are typically a feature of a constitutional monarch, a system of government in which the head of state is a queen or king whose power is limited by a constitution.

In a pluralist democracy, no single group dominates politics. Instead, organized groups within the people compete to influence public policy. In political science, the term pluralism expresses the ideology that influence should be spread among different interest groups, rather than held by a single elite group as in an aristocracy. Compared to participatory democracies, in which individuals take part in influencing political decisions, in a pluralist democracy, individuals work through groups formed around common causes hoping to win the support of elected leaders.

In this context, the pluralist democracy assumes that the government and the society as a whole benefit from a diversity of viewpoints. Examples of pluralist democracy can be seen in the impact special interest groups, such as the National Organization for Women , have had on American politics.

Constitutional

While the exact definition continues to be debated by political scientists, constitutional democracy is generally defined as a system of government based on popular sovereignty and a rule of law in which the structures, powers, and limits of government are established by a constitution. Constitutions are intended to restrict the power of the government, typically by separating those powers between the various branches of government, as in the United States constitution’s system of federalism . In a constitutional democracy, the constitution is considered to be the “ supreme law of the land .”

Democratic socialism is broadly defined as a system of government based on a socialist economy , in which most property and means of production are collectively, rather than individually, controlled by a constitutionally established political hierarchy—the government. Social democracy embraces government regulation of business and industry as a means of furthering economic growth while preventing income inequality .

While there are no purely socialist governments in the world today, elements of democratic socialism can be seen in Sweden’s provision of free universal health care, education, and sweeping social welfare programs. 

Is America a Democracy

While the word “democracy” does not appear in the United States Constitution, the document provides the basic elements of representative democracy: an electoral system based on majority rule, separation of powers, and dependence on a rule of law. Also, America’s Founding Fathers used the word often when debating the form and function of the Constitution.  

However, a long-running debate over whether the United States is a democracy or a republic continues today. According to a growing number of political scientists and constitutional scholars, it is both—a “democratic republic.”

Similar to democracy, a republic is a form of government in which the country is governed by the elected representatives of the people. However, since the people do not govern the state themselves, but do so through their representatives, a republic is distinguished from direct democracy.

Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law argues that the governments of democratic republics embrace the principles shared by both republics and democracies. To illustrate his point, Volokh notes that in the United States, many decisions on local and state levels are made by the people through the process of direct democracy, while as in a republic, most decisions at the national level are made by democratically elected representatives.

Brief History

Archeological evidence suggests that disorganized practices at least resembling democracy existed in some parts of the world during prehistoric times, However, the concept of democracy as a form of populist civic engagement emerged during the 5th century BCE in the form of the political system used in some of the city-states of Ancient Greece, most notably Athens . At that time, and for the next several centuries, tribes or city-states remained small enough that if democracy was practiced at all, it took the form of direct democracy. As city-states grew into larger, more heavily populated sovereign nation-states or countries, direct democracy became unwieldy and slowly gave way to representative democracy. This massive change necessitated an entirely new set of political institutions such as legislatures, parliaments, and political parties all designed according to the size and cultural character of the city or country to be governed.

Until the 17th century, most legislatures consisted only of the entire body of citizens, as in Greece, or representatives selected from among a tiny oligarchy or an elite hereditary aristocracy. This began to change during the English Civil Wars from 1642 to 1651 when members of the radical Puritan reformation movement demanded expanded representation in Parliament and the universal right to vote for all male citizens. By the middle 1700s, as the power of the British Parliament grew, the first political parties—the Whigs and Tories—emerged. It soon became obvious that laws could not be passed or taxes levied without the support of the Whig or Tory party representatives in Parliament.

While the developments in the British Parliament showed the feasibility of a representative form of government, the first truly representative democracies emerged during the 1780s in the British colonies of North America and took its modern form with the formal adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America on March 4, 1789.

Sources and Further Reference

• Desilver, Drew. “Despite global concerns about democracy, more than half of countries are democratic.” Pew Research Center , May 14, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/14/more-than-half-of-countries-are-democratic/.
• Kapstein, Ethan B., and Converse, Nathan. “The Fate of Young Democracies.” Cambridge University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780511817809.
• Diamond, Larry. “Democracy in Decline?” Johns Hopkins University Press, October 1, 2015, ISBN-10 1421418185.
• Gagnon, Jean-Paul. “2,234 Descriptions of Democracy: An Update to Democracy's Ontological Pluralism.” Democratic Theory, vol. 5, no. 1, 2018.
• Volokh, Eugene. “Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?” The Washington Post , May 13, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/. 
• Direct Democracy: Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons
• Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?
• Representative Democracy: Definition, Pros, and Cons
• What Is Totalitarianism? Definition and Examples
• What Is Civic Engagement? Definition and Examples
• Whistleblower: Definition and Examples
• Definition and Examples of Fraud
• The Differences Between Socialism and Communism
• What Is Political Socialization? Definition and Examples
• Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
• What Is Bureaucracy, and Is It Good or Bad?
• What Is an Ombudsman?
• About PACs - Political Action Committees
• How to Pick the Right Gift for Your Mail Carrier
• The Implied Powers of Congress
• 7 Different Types of Crimes

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Do you think representative democracy is the best form of government?

Modern representative democracies are not perfect. Does it meant that democracy cannot be considered anymore the best form of government? Vote & discuss

What is democracy?

A basic and widely accepted definition of democracy  is: “the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people”.  The word democracy comes from the Greek word demokratia meaning "rule" ( kratos ) by the "people" ( demos ). The core principle of democracy is, therefore, self-rule, but what does that mean in practice? For the Greeks, democracy meant not only the election of rulers by the ruled, but that there was no separation between the two; the ruled became those who govern. Decisions were made as a collective by all adult citizens in an environment of political equality and open discussion. Athenian direct democracy was in many ways unique because the polis consisted of only roughly 40,000 members.

Modern democratic government functions on a much larger scale, with millions of members, operate as representative democracies . This means that the democratic principle of self-government is transposed to the elected government. A representative (elected politicians) stands for another person, group or entity (electors, districts and parties). Elections have become a central part of democracies. Are you among those who think that democracy has been reduced to a set of ballots and elections at the expense of a deeper debate and discussion? Are we missing some in our modern democracies some of the core values inherent in direct forms of democracy ?

Liberal democracies entail the rule of the majority, however the respect and protection of the rights of the minorities is intrinsic part of the modern notion of democracy. Some countries which hold democratic elections are plagued by systematic abuses of social rights or discrimination of minority groups or women are known as illiberal democracies. Whether illiberal democracies are actually democratic is a matter for debate. Likewise the division of powers , executive, legislative and judiciary, is an expected feature in a democracy. Thus there are checks and balances between the president, members of the Congress and Senates, and Supreme Court justices .

Alternatives to democracy

Authoritarian regimes are those where rulers seek to maintain their control by limiting mass participation in politics. Under a totalitarian regime , such as North Korea, states place total, unlimited power in a ruler or group of rulers who seek to control the whole population through government surveillance and fear. Authoritarian regimes likewise can either be ruled by a single dominant leader or an elite group such as a military, religious council or a single party. The division of powers is authoritarian regimes tends to be respected only in appearance. Non-democratic leaders can stand above the law. Laws may be vague and contradictory, with civil rights poorly respected and private gatherings or associations outlawed. However some people think that democracy is overrated and that dictatorships have greater capacity to push forward reforms and control anti-system groups and revolts. In fact there are many non-democratic regimes among the richest countries in the world, such as the Gulf countries and Singapore. China is another example of a great power which has followed a non-democratic approach to government.

Democracy is the best form of government, right?

After the Cold War the political scientist Francis Fukuyama to proclaimed that the world had reached, "the end of history". His thesis referred to the end of the ideological battle between state socialism and liberal democractic capitalism. The victory of liberal democracy and capitalism, he argued, would soon result in their global acceptance. However history continues, public unrest as well as economic and institutional crises are questioning our current models of liberal democracy. Should we switch back to models of direct democracy similar to the Athenian one? Can some sort of authoritarian rule help our countries solve their immediate problems? Can non-elected technocrats rule better our countries than elected representatives?

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

Federalist 10: Democratic Republic vs. Pure Democracy

 by natalie bolton and gordon lloyd, introduction:.

To assist teachers in teaching the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Professor Gordon Lloyd  has created a website in collaboration with the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University on the Federalist and Antifederalist Debates . Professor Lloyd organizes the content of the debates in various ways on the website. Two lesson plans have been created to align with two of the most noted essays high school students are encouraged to read, Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 . Within each lesson students will use a Federalist Paper as their primary source for acquiring content.

Guiding Question:

Why can a republic protect liberties better than a democracy?

Learning Objectives:

After completing this lesson, students should be able to: Define faction in Federalist 10 . Analyze present day issues and determine if they qualify as a faction as defined in Federalist 10 . Explain why Madison advocated for a democratic republic form of government over a pure democracy in Federalist 10 .

Background Information for the Teacher:

The years were 1787 and 1788. Along with the debate over the Constitution that was taking place in the state legislatures, an “out-of-doors” debate raged in newspapers and pamphlets throughout America’s thirteen states following the Constitutional Convention over the Constitution that had been proposed. Origin of The Federalist The eighty-five essays appeared in one or more of the following four New York newspapers: 1) The New York Journal , edited by Thomas Greenleaf, 2) Independent Journal , edited by John McLean, 3) New York Advertiser , edited by Samuel and John Loudon, and 4) Daily Advertiser , edited by Francis Childs. Initially, they were intended to be a twenty essay response to the Antifederalist attacks on the Constitution that were flooding the New York newspapers right after the Constitution had been signed in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. The Cato letters started to appear on September 27, George Mason’s objections were in circulation and the Brutus essays were launched on October 18. The number of essays in The Federalist was extended in response to the relentless, and effective, Antifederalist criticism of the proposed Constitution. McLean bundled the first 36 essays together—they appeared in the newspapers between October 27, 1787 and January 8, 1788—and published them as Volume 1 on March 22, 1788. Essays 37 through 77 of The Federalist appeared between January 11, and April 2, 1788. On May 28, McLean took Federalist 37-77 as well as the yet to be published Federalist 78-85 and issued them all as Volume 2 of The Federalist . Between June 14 and August 16, these eight remaining essays—Federalist 78-85—appeared in the Independent Journal and New York Packet . The Status of The Federalist One of the persistent questions concerning the status of The Federalist is this: is it a propaganda tract written to secure ratification of the Constitution and thus of no enduring relevance or is it the authoritative expositor of the meaning of the Constitution having a privileged position in constitutional interpretation? It is tempting to adopt the former position because 1) the essays originated in the rough and tumble of the ratification struggle. It is also tempting to 2) see The Federalist as incoherent; didn’t Hamilton and Madison disagree with each other within five years of co-authoring the essays? Surely the seeds of their disagreement are sown in the very essays! 3) The essays sometimes appeared at a rate of about three per week and, according to Madison, there were occasions when the last part of an essay was being written as the first part was being typed. 1) One should not confuse self-serving propaganda with advocating a political position in a persuasive manner. After all, rhetorical skills are a vital part of the democratic electoral process and something a free people have to handle. These are op-ed pieces of the highest quality addressing the most pressing issues of the day. 2) Moreover, because Hamilton and Madison parted ways doesn’t mean that they weren’t in fundamental agreement in 1787-1788 about the need for a more energetic form of government. And just because they were written with certain haste doesn’t mean that they were unreflective and not well written. Federalist 10, the most famous of all the essays, is actually the final draft of an essay that originated in Madison’s Vices in 1787, matured at the Constitutional Convention in June 1787, and was refined in a letter to Jefferson in October 1787. All of Jay’s essays focus on foreign policy, the heart of the Madisonian essays are Federalist 37-51 on the great difficulty of founding, and Hamilton tends to focus on the institutional features of federalism and the separation of powers. I suggest, furthermore, that the moment these essays were available in book form, they acquired a status that went beyond the more narrowly conceived objective of trying to influence the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist now acquired a “timeless” and higher purpose, a sort of icon status equal to the very Constitution that it was defending and interpreting. And we can see this switch in tone in Federalist 37 when Madison invites his readers to contemplate the great difficulty of founding. Federalist 38 , echoing Federalist 1 , points to the uniqueness of the America Founding: never before had a nation been founded by the reflection and choice of multiple founders who sat down and deliberated over creating the best form of government consistent with the genius of the American people. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Constitution as the work of “demigods,” and The Federalist “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” There is a coherent teaching on the constitutional aspects of a new republicanism and a new federalism in The Federalist that makes the essays attractive to readers of every generation. Authorship of The Federalist A second question about The Federalist is how many essays did each person write? James Madison—at the time a resident of New York since he was a Virginia delegate to the Confederation Congress that met in New York—John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton—both of New York—wrote these essays under the pseudonym, “Publius.” So one answer to the question is that how many essays each person wrote doesn’t matter since everyone signed off under the same pseudonym, “Publius.” But given the iconic status of The Federalist , there has been an enduring curiosity about the authorship of the essays. Although it is virtually agreed that Jay wrote only five essays, there have been several disputes over the decades concerning the distribution of the essays between Hamilton and Madison. Suffice it to note, that Madison’s last contribution was Federalist 63 , leaving Hamilton as the exclusive author of the nineteen Executive and Judiciary essays. Madison left New York in order to comply with the residence law in Virginia concerning eligibility for the Virginia ratifying convention . There is also widespread agreement that Madison wrote the first thirteen essays on the great difficulty of founding. There is still dispute over the authorship of Federalist 50-58, but these have persuasively been resolved in favor of Madison. Outline of The Federalist A third question concerns how to “outline” the essays into its component parts. We get some natural help from the authors themselves. Federalist 1 outlines the six topics to be discussed in the essays without providing an exact table of contents. The authors didn’t know in October 1787 how many essays would be devoted to each topic. Nevertheless, if one sticks with the “formal division of the subject” outlined in the first essay, it is possible to work out the actual division of essays into the six topic areas or “points” after the fact so to speak. Martin Diamond was one of the earliest scholars to break The Federalist into its component parts. He identified Union as the subject matter of the first thirty-six Federalist essays and Republicanism as the subject matter of last forty-nine essays. There is certain neatness to this breakdown, and accuracy to the Union essays. The first three topics outlined in Federalist 1 are 1) the utility of the union, 2) the insufficiency of the present confederation under the Articles of Confederation , and 3) the need for a government at least as energetic as the one proposed. The opening paragraph of Federalist 15 summarizes the previous fourteen essays and says: “in pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the pursuance of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the ‘insufficiency of the present confederation.'” So we can say with confidence that Federalist 1-14 is devoted to the utility of the union. Similarly, Federalist 23 opens with the following observation: “the necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic as the one proposed… is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.” Thus Federalist 15-22 covered the second point dealing with union or federalism. Finally, Federalist 37 makes it clear that coverage of the third point has come to an end and new beginning has arrived. And since McLean bundled the first thirty-six essays into Volume 1, we have confidence in declaring a conclusion to the coverage of the first three points all having to do with union and federalism. The difficulty with the Diamond project is that it becomes messy with respect to topics 4, 5, and 6 listed in Federalist 1 : 4) the Constitution conforms to the true principles of republicanism , 5) the analogy of the Constitution to state governments, and 6) the added benefits from adopting the Constitution. Let’s work our way backward. In Federalist 85 , we learn that “according to the formal division of the subject of these papers announced in my first number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points,” namely, the fifth and sixth points. That leaves, “republicanism,” the fourth point, as the topic for Federalist 37-84, or virtually the entire Part II of The Federalist . I propose that we substitute the word Constitutionalism for Republicanism as the subject matter for essays 37-51, reserving the appellation Republicanism for essays 52-84. This substitution is similar to the “Merits of the Constitution” designation offered by Charles Kesler in his new introduction to the Rossiter edition; the advantage of this Constitutional approach is that it helps explain why issues other than Republicanism strictly speaking are covered in Federalist 37-46. Kesler carries the Constitutional designation through to the end; I suggest we return to Republicanism with Federalist 52 . Taken from the Introduction to The Federalist .

Preparing to Teach this Lesson:

Prior to teaching this lesson the teacher should cover content related to the Articles of Confederation and its weaknesses. The teacher should familiarize her/himself with Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787 on the following days outlined below. Gordon Lloyd has presented the content of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a Four Act Drama . Additionally, the teacher should cover content related to Federalist and Antifederalist debates that occurred prior to Federalist 10 being published. Three activities are outlined below and should be implemented in order. Activity 1: Define faction in Federalist 10 . Activity 2: Analyze present day issues and determine if they qualify as a faction as defined in Federalist 10 . Activity 3: Analyzing Federalist 10 using APPARTS. For all activities, students will use Federalist 10 . To assist students in reading Federalist 10 , a paragraph-by-paragraph summary has been provided by Gordon Lloyd.

Analyzing Primary Sources:

If your students lack experience in dealing with primary sources, you might use one or more preliminary exercises to help them develop these skills. The Learning Page at the American Memory Project of the Library of Congress includes a set of such activities. Another useful resource is the Digital Classroom of the National Archives, which features a set of Document Analysis Worksheets . Finally, History Matters offers pages on “ Making Sense of Maps ” and “ Making Sense of Oral History ” which give helpful advice to teachers in getting their students to use such sources effectively.

Suggested Activities:

Activity 1: Define faction in Federalist 10

Time required for activity: In class activity 20 minutes.

The teacher will open day one of the lesson by sharing that Federalist 10 is one of 85 essays advocating for the ratification of the United States Constitution. Federalist 10 was written by James Madison and published on November 22, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius. In this essay, Madison addresses the question of how to guard against “factions,” or groups of citizens, with interests that are contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the community as a whole. Madison defined factions as groups of citizens with opinions, passions, or interests contrary to the interests of others or the well-being of others. These groups of citizens saw factions as irreconcilable differences that could not be negotiated or compromised (i.e. war, divorce).

This activity serves as an introduction to the lesson focusing on student understanding of the word faction. The teacher will ask students to move to a designated corner of the room based on their interest in completing one of the following products: illustration/drawing, mime/monument, Public Service Announcement (PSA), and written flyer. Each corner of the classroom will represent a product.

The teacher will tell students they have 10 minutes to create their designated product. All students will respond to the same question, “What is a faction?” Students will answer the question as an individual, in a small group, or whole group based on their interests and readiness. Students should use any resources they have available to assist in completing the activity. Students will then be asked to share their products with the class.

The teacher will then debrief the activity with students as they complete a verbal and visual word association on faction as a reflection activity ( see handout ). The teacher can use this completed task as a formative assessment for student understanding of the meaning of faction.

Activity 2: Factions and Current Issues

Time required for activity: 20 minutes To assist students in understanding factions that are present today, students will evaluate and discuss eight present day issues and determine if they qualify as a faction, as defined by Madison in Federalist 10 . Students will be asked to rate each issue on a three point scale with the anchors agree and disagree. The midpoint of the scale will read, don’t know. Teachers should give students the Current Issues Spectrum handout and ask them to read and rate the eight issues followed by an explanation. The teacher should make a poster for each of the current issues and have students place a mark and determine if the current issue is or is not a faction. Students can mark with a dot, post-it note, or marker. After students make their decisions, the class should discuss why they believe the issue is or is not a faction. The teacher should wrap-up the class discussion by asking students, “If the government has to make decisions on how to address the current issue, is it better to have every individuals voice be heard on every current event issue or is it better to have a representative from each of the anchors on the scale of each issue share their opinion? Are voices more powerful if they come from a large group of people together or from people who share the same ideas but live far apart from one another?

Activity 3: Interpreting and Evaluating Federalist 10

Time required for activity: In class reading assignment and completing an APPARTS graphic organizer, one 45 minute class period. Students may complete individually or in small groups. The teacher should remind students that Federalist 10 is one of 85 essays advocating for the ratification of the United States Constitution. Federalist 10 was written by James Madison and published on November 22, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius. In this essay, Madison addresses the question of how to guard against “factions,” or groups of citizens, with interests that are contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the community as a whole.

APPARTS Graphic Organizer

To help students understand the main ideas that emerged from Federalist 10, ask students to read Federalist 10 and complete the APPARTS graphic organizer handout . Students will use the APPARTS strategy to explain why James Madison advocated for a democratic republic form of government over a pure democracy in Federalist 10. Students may complete this task individually or in small groups.

Note: APPARTS is a strategy often used in Advanced Placement courses to analyze primary sources.

USING APPARTS TO ANALYZE PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS

To understand history or politics it is essential that you learn to critically examine significant primary source documents.

APPARTS is an “easy to remember” acronym for the following:

AUTHOR Who created the source? What do you know about the author? What is the author’s point of view?

PLACE AND TIME Where and when was the source produced? How might this affect the meaning of the source?

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE Beyond information about the author and the context of its creation, what do you know that would help you further understand the primary source? For example, do you recognize any symbols and recall what they represent?

AUDIENCE For whom was the source created and how might this affect the reliability of the source?

REASON Why was this source produced at the time it was produced?

THE MAIN IDEA What main point is the source trying to convey? What is the central message of the document?

SIGNIFICANCE Why is this source important? What inferences can you draw from this document? Ask yourself, “So what?” What should a student of history or politics take away from the analysis of this document?

Students may read the full-text of Federalist 10 or they can read a paragraph-by-paragraph summary written by Gordon Lloyd.

Depending on student content vocabulary readiness the teacher may need to review vocabulary used in Federalist 10. A teacher resource has been created using the Federalist 10 summary to review vocabulary using a word wall. The teacher will tell students that the class will be adding several words to the word wall today. Word walls are a literacy strategy that may be used before reading (explicit teaching and modeling, during reading (guided practice) and after reading (guided practice).

Assessment:

In 4-5 paragraphs, using your APPARTS analysis, write a reply to James Madison explaining if you agree or disagree with his perspective on the best form of government for the United States to protect individual liberties.

Extending the Lesson:

Extension 1: Compare how Madison discusses factions in Madison’s Vices , his June 6th speech during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and Federalist 10. Extension 2: Do you think that our government today effectively guards against factions? Why or why not? Explain. Extension 3: Do you think that if a government official went about gaining public support using the methods Madison did to ratify the Constitution, would they work into today’s society? Why or why not? Do you think this is good or bad? Why or why not?

Related EDSITEment Lesson Plans:

• The Federalist Debates: Balancing Power between State and Federal Governments

Selected Websites:

• James Madison, Federalist 10
• James Madison, Federalist 51

Standards Alignment:

• CIVICED (9-12) I What are Civic Life, Politics, and Government?
• CIVICED (9-12) II What are the Foundations of the American Political System?
• CIVICED (9-12) III How Does the Government Established by the Constitution Embody the Purposes, Values, and Principles of American Democracy?
• CIVICED (9-12) V What are the Roles of the Citizen in American Democracy?
• NCSS-10 Civic ideals and practices. Citizenship in a democratic republic.
• NCSS-4 Individual development and identity.
• NCSS-5 Individuals, groups, and institutions.
• NCSS-6 Power, authority, and governance.

Receive resources and noteworthy updates.

Quote Investigator®

Tracing Quotations

Quote Origin: Democracy Is the Worst Form of Government Except For All Others Which Have Been Tried

Winston churchill guy henson plato israel zangwill william ralph inge robert briffault herbert hoover anonymous.

Question for Quote Investigator: The flaws in the democratic form of government are numerous, yet the alternatives such as oligarchy and autocracy inevitably become oppressive and tyrannical. A famous saying states that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others which have been tried.

Winston Churchill popularized this notion, but I do not know who should receive credit for originating it. Would you please explore this topic?

Reply from Quote Investigator: In November 1947 Winston Churchill delivered a speech to the U.K. House of Commons. He made a memorable remark about democracy, but he employed the prefatory phrase “it has been said”. Thus, he signaled that the remark was already in circulation. Boldface added to excerpts by QI : 1

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.

Churchill was correct that the saying was circulating before his remark. QI has located a match written by Canadian educator Guy Henson in May 1946 within “A Report On Provincial Support of Adult Education in Nova Scotia”. Henson did not take credit; instead, the attribution was anonymous: 2

This dilemma in education depends for solution on the meaning of democracy in practice. This is commonly called the most difficult form of government in the world; it has even been called the worst form of government, except for all others which have been tried. Certainly it is the form of government which our people are agreed to make work.

Below are additional selected citations in chronological order.

The thematically related claim that democracy is sometimes the worst form of government and sometimes the best can be traced back to ancient times. Plato’s stance on democracy was complex. He made a distinction between governments that were lawful versus lawless. The following excerpt is from an English translation of “The Statesman” in which a democracy is called the “government of the multitude”: 3

But the government of the multitude is weak in all respects and able to do nothing great, either good or bad, when compared with the other forms of government, because in this the powers of government are distributed in small shares among many men; therefore of all these governments when they are lawful, this is the worst, and when they are all lawless it is the best; and if they are all without restraint, life is most desirable in a democracy, but if they are orderly, that is the worst to live in . . .

In 1894 Robert Flint published “Socialism” which included a passage suggesting that a well-operating democracy was the best form of government, but a dysfunctional democracy was the worst: 4

A great deal of labour, and wisdom, and virtue, in fact, are needed in order that Democracy may be a success. Although at its conceivable best Democracy would be the best of all forms of Government, it may not only be the worst of all Governments, but is certainly the most difficult form of Government to maintain good, and still more to make nearly perfect.

In 1906 Ernest Barker published “The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle” which contained the following thematically related passage: 5

Further, the classified States were arranged in an order of merit, according to which monarchy was the best of the good States, and tyranny the worst of the bad; while good democracy was the worst of the good, and bad democracy the best of the bad. Aristotle is obviously indebted to Plato for this scheme . . .

In 1919 Robert Briffault published “The Making Of Humanity”. Briffault highlighted the defects of democracy, but he still considered it to be the only admissible form of government: 6

Democracy is the worst form of government. It is the most inefficient, the most clumsy, the most unpractical. No machinery has yet been contrived to carry out in any but the most farcical manner its principles. It reduces wisdom to impotence and secures the triumph of folly, ignorance, clap-trap and demagogy. . . . But there is something even more important than efficiency and expediency—justice. And democracy is the only social order that is admissible, because it is the only one consistent with justice.

In 1923 British author Israel Zangwill used the cogent phrase “Democracy is the least bad form of government” during a speech. This statement differed from the quotation under examination. Yet, it presented a concise expression of the same insight. Here is an excerpt from Zangwill’s speech: 7

For my part I am not a die-hard Democrat. I have always, indeed, more or less humorously defined myself as a Democrat with a profound mistrust of the people. But I recognize that Democracy is the least bad form of government. It is, of course, peculiarly liable to be exploited by demagogues, who, instead of uplifting the masses, use them as a means for lifting themselves up. But whereas there is no way of correcting a maleficent autocracy save by smashing it, a maleficent Democracy contains the cure for its own evils. For the people has a sound instinct in the long run.

In 1940 a letter in a Amarillo, Texas newspaper gave credit for a concise version of the insight to Professor of Divinity William Ralph Inge: 8

It was Dean Inge—the gloomy dean of London—who said that a democracy was the “least worst” form of government yet discovered.

In May 1946 Guy Henson who was Director of Adult Education in Nova Scotia, Canada published the earliest close match for the saying located by QI :

. . . democracy . . . it has even been called the worst form of government, except for all others which have been tried.

In November 1947 Winston Churchill employed the saying during a speech in Parliament:

Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time .

In 1957 former U.S. President Herbert Hoover employed a variant during a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors: 9

Philosophically, Hoover observed: “In recent years I have often remarked that ours has become the worst mechanism of Government in the world—except all others on earth.”

In 1968 an anonymous instance appeared in “20,000 Quips and Quotes” compiled by Evan Esar: 10

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have already been tried.

In 1996 “The Washington Post” published a piece by journalist Robert J. Samuelson which referenced the saying: 11

It can be said of capitalism what Winston Churchill once said of democracy—it is the worst possible system, except for all the others.

In conclusion, this saying was employed by Guy Henson in May 1946, but he disclaimed credit. The saying was also employed by Winston Churchill in November 1947. He also disclaimed credit. The originator remains anonymous. A concise version of a similar notion was spoken by Israel Zangwill in 1923.

Image Notes: Illustration of a ballot box from Element5 Digital at Unsplash. The image has been cropped and retouched.

Acknowledgement: Great thanks to Tomasz Radko, Dick Margulis, Stephan McCrea, John Duz Dusenbury, and Nigel Rees whose inquiries led QI to formulate this question and perform this exploration. Additional thanks to Rees whose reference work “Cassell’s Humorous Quotations” contains an entry for the quotation ascribed to Churchill. Further thanks to Fred R. Shapiro whose reference work “The New Yale Book of Quotations” contains entries for the quotations ascribed to Churchill and Robert Briffault. Special thanks to the kind librarian at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign who retrieved “A Report On Provincial Support of Adult Education in Nova Scotia” from storage to help verify the citation.

• UK Parliament Hansard, Commons, Volume 444, Date: November 11, 1947, Orders Of The Day, Parliament Bill, Speaker Winston Churchill (Woodford), London, England. (UK Hansard) link ↩︎
• 1946 May, A Report On Provincial Support of Adult Education in Nova Scotia by Guy Henson (Director of Adult Education), Appendix C to the Journal of Education, Part I: The Goals of Adult Education, Section 3: The Democratic Principle of Freedom with Purpose, Quote Page 25, Published by Department of Education, Halifax, Nova Scotia. (Verified with scans; thanks to a librarian at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign) ↩︎
• 1925, Plato – The Statesman With an English Translation by Harold N Fowler, Volume 3, Remark from Stranger, Quote Page 165, William Heinemann, London. (Google Books Full View) link ↩︎
• 1894, Socialism by Robert Flint (Professor in the University of Edinburgh), Chapter 9: Socialism and Democracy, Quote Page 322, Isbister and Company, London. (Google Books Full View) link ↩︎
• 1906, The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle by E. Barker (Sir Ernest Barker), Chapter 7: The State as a Compound, Quote Page 320, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. (Google Books Full View) link ↩︎
• 1919, The Making Of Humanity by Robert Briffault, Part 3: Evolution of Moral Order, Section 2: Primary and Secondary Genesis of Morality, Sub-Section 5: Ethics and Politics, Quote Page 295, George Allen & Unwin London. (Google Books Full View) link ↩︎
• 1923, “Watchman, What of the Night?” by Israel Zangwill, Note: Address delivered before The American Jewish Congress, Carnegie Hall, New York City, October 14, 1923, Quote Page 12, Published by The American Jewish Congress, New York. (Google Books Full View) link ↩︎
• 1940 August 20, Amarillo Daily News, Letters to Editor Roll In, Letter Title: In God We Trust, Quote Page 8, Column 6, Amarillo, Texas (Newspapers_com) ↩︎
• 1957 July 12, San Francisco Examiner, Hoover’s Warning, Continuation title: Hoover: Challenge to U.S. Told, Start Page 1, Quote Page 18, Column 5, San Francisco, California. (Newspapers_com) ↩︎
• 1968, 20,000 Quips and Quotes, Compiled by Evan Esar, Subject: Democracy, Quote Page 213, Doubleday, Garden City, New York. (Verified on paper) ↩︎
• 1996 May 1, The Washington Post, Capitalism Under Siege by Robert J. Samuelson, Quote Page A19, Column 1, Washington, D.C. (ProQuest) ↩︎

• How Parliament works
• System of government
• The Australian Constitution
• Three levels of government
• Parliament at work
• Bills and laws

This fact sheet introduces the idea of democracy and explores the key ideas which support Australia’s democratic system of government.

What will I learn?

• Democracy means rule by the people.
• Australia is a democratic country.
• Australian democracy is supported by key features like freedom of speech, fair elections, inclusion, and the rule of law.

Glossary words

representative democracy

Curriculum alignment

Year 5 ACHASSK115 Year 6 ACHASSK143 Year 7 ACHCK048 Year 7 ACHCK050 Year 7 ACHCK052 Year 10 ACHCK090 Year 10 ACHCK094

What is democracy?

Democracy means rule by the people. The word comes from the ancient Greek words ‘demos’ (the people) and ‘kratos’ (to rule). A democratic country has a system of government where people have the power to participate in decision-making.

Each democracy is unique and works in different ways. In some, people help make decisions directly by voting on laws and policy proposals. This is called direct democracy. In others, like Australia, citizens choose representatives to make decisions on their behalf. This is known as representative democracy .

Australian democracy

Democracy key ideas.

Parliamentary Education Office (peo.gov.au)

Description

This diagram illustrates the 4 key ideas of Australian democracy:

• Active and engaged citizens—Citizens have a voice and can make changes in society.
• An inclusive and equitable society—We work towards a society where everyone is respected and free.
• Free and franchised elections—We get to stand for election and choose who makes decision on our behalf.
• The rule of law for both citizens and the government—Everyone is equal before the law and must follow the law.

Copyright information

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

You are free to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work.

Attribution – you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Non-commercial – you may not use this work for commercial purposes.

No derivative works – you may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Waiver – any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Active and engaged citizens

• People have a voice and can make changes in society.
• People can participate by getting involved in their community. This might be by joining a charity, a political party or a community group.
• Everyone can get involved in the work of Parliament through contacting members of parliament, the work of committees, protesting and petitioning.

An inclusive and equitable society

• People work towards a society where everyone is respected and free, where everyone is valued and supported to reach their full potential.
• People have freedom of speech, association, movement and belief.
• Our society supports the development and well-being of individuals and their right to make their own choices.
• Opposing ideas are tolerated and respected. People listen to different points of view in Parliament and society.

Free and franchised elections

• People can stand for elections and choose who makes decisions on their behalf.
• Voting is done in secret so people can make their choice without pressure or intimidation.
• Elections are run by an independent organisation­—the Australian Electoral Commission .

The rule of law for both citizens and the government

• Everyone is equal before the law and must follow the law, including the people who make laws.
• Laws should be fair, clearly written and protect people's rights.

What are the benefits of democracy?

Some of the benefits of democracy are:

• There are ways to resolve different views and conflicts peacefully.
• Respect for human dignity.
• People have freedom to act, speak and think freely (as long as it does not stop others doing the same).
• Equality before the law.
• Safe and secure community.
• Government that is transparent, responsive and accountable to the people.
• Ability to hold elected representatives accountable.

Test your knowledge about Democracy with these 4 questions

• Share on Classroom
• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook
• Share on pinterest

Want to know more?

Australian democracy.

Museum of Australian Democracy

• Welcome to the Parliamentary Education Office
• Understand our Parliament
• Parliament and its people
• Having your say
• Getting involved
• History of Parliament
• History milestones
• Parliament House
• National Symbols in Parliament House
• Teach our Parliament
• Curriculum links
• Classroom activities
• Units of work
• Education resources
• Interactive posters
• Professional learning
• Self-paced online learning
• Book a program
• Parliament House program
• Prepare for your program
• Digital programs
• Outreach program
• Connect with the PEO
• Get to know the PEO
• Our products
• Using our website
• Social Media Acceptable Use Guidelines
• Support for senators and members

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• What is democracy?
• Where was democracy first practiced?
• Why does democracy need education?
• Why is Pericles important?
• What was Pericles’ family like?
• Was Pericles married?
• What is Pericles remembered for?
• How did Pericles die?

How is democracy better than other forms of government?

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

Related Questions

• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Get New Issue Alerts
• American Academy of Arts 
and Sciences

The Fate of American Democracy Depends on Free Speech

The freedom of speech—an essential cornerstone of American democracy—is under direct attack, leaving American institutions, civic culture, and society deeply vulnerable. Restrictions on books and educational curricula, limits on assembly rights, the rampant spread of disinformation, the chill of “cancel culture” and online abuse—all impinge upon the open exchange of ideas that the First Amendment was intended to underwrite. Encroachments on freedom of expression emanate from all sides of the political spectrum and through both formal and informal channels. It is imperative that efforts to contain and surmount the crisis of American democracy include a sharpened focus on the defense of free speech, an essential counterpart to voting rights, civil rights, and a healthy democratic culture. 

Suzanne Nossel is Chief Executive Officer of PEN America, a leading human rights and free expression organization, and serves on the Meta Oversight Board. Her prior career spanned government service and leadership roles in the corporate and nonprofit sectors, including as Chief Operating Officer of Human Rights Watch and Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. During the first term of the Obama administration, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. She is the author of Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All (2020) and is a featured columnist for Foreign Policy magazine. 

In response to our democratic crisis—polarization, contested elections, political violence—philanthropists, activists, and civic leaders have set about trying to find ways to restore democracy and a vibrant civic culture. Foundations have launched ambitious new programs. Individual philanthropists have convened collaboratives—the Democracy Alliance, the Democracy Funders Network, New Pluralists—aimed to pool resources and insights to shore up the polity. A cottage industry of new organizations has grown over the last seven years to work on voting rights, voter access, election laws and systems, civic participation, and more. These valiant efforts have collectively helped tamp down political unrest, fend off demands to reject the 2020 election result, and defend vulnerable democratic systems at the state level across the country. Many of these efforts are geared not just toward fortifying American democracy in its current form, but also to reinventing it to better meet the needs of a country buffeted by technological, demographic, and social change.

One bulwark of a healthy democracy that these efforts have not sufficiently prioritized, however, is free speech. This is doubly surprising. First, because alongside voting rights and systems, good governance, and civic participation, free speech and open discourse have always formed part of the backbone of a healthy democracy. And second, because free speech and open expression are so clearly under threat today. Controversies over free speech—what can and cannot be said, taught, studied, and read—are fueling grievances that are deepening polarization and distrust in our political system. Yet the battle to uphold free speech has not been incorporated into the broader movement for democracy. It must be.

In this essay, I first describe the loss of faith in free speech on the left and the right and the reasons for it. I then detail the relationship between free speech and democracy, and how it has come under pressure from growing pluralism, polarization, and digitization. I follow by outlining how a flagging commitment to free speech in education, in terms of protest and assembly rights and in relation to the role of the free press, are collectively weakening American democracy. I conclude with a series of recommendations that can help shore up the place of free speech as a democratic cornerstone now and for generations to come.

Free speech is in danger of losing its status as a prime American value. The courts still uphold the right to free speech; indeed, free speech protections were steadily widened by judicial decisions throughout the twentieth century. But free speech ideals are now faring poorly in the hands of legislators, politicians, institutions, and citizens. Meanwhile, a growing slice of twenty-first-century challenges to free speech—the harms of social media, so-called cancel culture or informal reprisals for errant speech, hot button subjects that are effectively off-limits for discussion on college campuses and in the media—do not implicate state action and, for the most part, cannot be redressed through constitutional channels.

Embedding the place of free speech in American society and culture thus requires recognizing that the freedom of speech is not just an individual right, but also a collective cultural value. The violation of free speech rights by the government in relation to specific citizens is not the only threat to free speech in the United States today. Rather, the perception that one cannot speak freely—coupled with the fear of reprisal or exasperation that our discourse makes it impossible to be heard—is feeding corrosive levels of social and political frustration. In Florida, outrage over so-called wokeness has fueled the most comprehensive legislative assault on free speech rights in memory, with limitations on what can be taught and studied in schools and colleges. 1 The defense of free speech and open discourse cannot be left up to attorneys, legal scholars, and courts. The obligation rests with individual citizens and with a wide range of institutions and leaders, in and out of government. At a time of deep political schisms, free speech must be elevated as a cause above politics, with leaders across the spectrum recognizing that the free exchange of ideas is a prerequisite to achieving their own political priorities and social visions.

Too many young progressives see free speech as a smoke screen for hatred. Loose talk about the harms of speech has cordoned entire subject areas—transgender rights, affirmative action, reparations for the historic mistreatment of minority populations, public safety, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—as virtually off-limits for discussion in classrooms and other campus settings (as well as in workplaces), lest errant comments cause offense and lead to hard-to-shake accusations of bigotry or inexcusable callousness. 2 Invited speakers on these and other topics have been shouted down at universities by irate student protesters who cast free speech—or, more specifically, open discussions of contrary views on topics such as racial justice, gender identity, or war—as inimical to their causes. 3 Administrators have fired professors for depicting paintings considered offensive, supporting union activity, and criticizing mask mandates. 4 That the loudest voices asserting and defending free speech rights on campus are sometimes libertarian or conservative can compound the perception in some quarters that free speech rights are about protecting the powerful and privileged (or at least the white and the male), and are at odds with social justice causes.

Ironically, although some on the right have denounced enforced ideological ­orthodoxies in higher education and elsewhere in the name of free speech, some conservatives have emerged in recent years as some of our most aggressive censors. Republican-controlled statehouses and schools have embraced legislated book bans and restrictions on curricula in classrooms and higher educational institutions. 5 They have disproportionately targeted books and theories by and about minority authors and gays, lesbians, and transgender people, rejecting newer, broader ideas about racial equality, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The move to marginalize these viewpoints has been accompanied by a reversion to old-fashioned, even prudish notions of sexuality, with objections being lodged against books like the Diary of Anne Frank or Toni Morrison’s Bluest Eye on the grounds that they are pornographic. 6 As an antidote to what they regard as wokeness run amok, they choose censorship. While courts may curb some of the overreach, states and school systems have wide latitude to determine what is taught in public classrooms. Moreover, research shows that, in hearing free speech cases, judges tend to be more vigilant in guarding speech that aligns with their own political values. 7 Staunchly conservative district and circuit courts in parts of the country where educational censorship is afoot may sympathize with legislators who see the suppression of ideas considered controversial, inappropriate, or subversive as justified.

These pressures from the left and right are undermining free speech as a bedrock constitutional, cultural, and democratic value in the United States. If young people view free speech as an alien concept at odds with their beliefs, it will only be a matter of time before such attitudes—now widespread on college campuses and among organizations where progressives predominate—pervade all forms of workplaces, editorial pages, statehouses, and courthouses. If restrictive content-based laws dictating what can and cannot be taught in schools and universities become the norm, these educational systems will cede their influence as breeding grounds for democratic citizenship and as settings in which students learn to grapple with the widest breadth of ideas. Meanwhile, fast-evolving digital technologies are reshaping how we find and absorb information, making it harder to distinguish between fact and falsehood (including on pressing civic matters such as elections), raising the costs of certain kinds of speech, and creating new methods to intimidate and silence others. These trends pose a proximate risk to American democracy and reversing them is essential to the future of the democratic project.

The nexus between free speech and democracy is both abstract and concrete, universal and particular. As set out in the First Amendment, free speech is a series of interlocking rights that collectively ensure that citizens have the ability to perpetuate and perfect their system of governance. The First Amendment’s protections—of freedom of belief, speech, the press, and assembly, and the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances—operate on a spectrum from the personal and private to the public and political. They protect the right to think and believe as you choose, express those beliefs to others, syndicate those views through media, rally fellow citizens behind a cause, and press the government for action. Those freedoms are the essence of democratic citizenship. Being a citizen in a democracy allows and, indeed, demands that an individual do more than just cast a vote on election day. To cast a ballot conscientiously requires receiving information, forming personal beliefs, understanding public concerns, and being ready to hold officials accountable. Absent such forethought and engagement, casting a vote is an empty act. A vote cast willfully and conscientiously depends upon the exercise of the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment and on the existence of public discourse that allows people to be informed. In places where local news outlets have dried up and there are few sources of reliable information about candidates or policy issues, it is hard to cast a meaningful vote. 8

Free speech not only underpins democracy at the level of the individual citizen, but also provides scaffolding for democratic systems that govern communities, states, and nations. Free speech makes possible open deliberations in search of improved policies and new solutions. Debate, media scrutiny, and public questioning help to vet current and prospective leaders, enabling the polity to find those who are most visionary, honest, and capable. Without robust protections for press freedom, journalists might have to risk their lives or freedoms for exposing the scandals of the #MeToo era, political corruption, or the ethical lapses of justices of the Supreme Court. Around the world, hundreds of journalists are killed each year, many in retaliation for their reporting about the misdeeds of the powerful, including public officials. Democracies do not let that happen. Open debate makes possible the rigorous exchange of ideas and perspectives necessary to adjudicate conflicting interests and to move society forward. Free speech also acts as a safety valve, allowing tensions to be aired and addressed rather than to fester and erupt into violence. Free speech is a catalyst for uncovering the truth in that it protects those who question received wisdom and express heretical ideas. Free speech also safeguards and helps advance minority rights by preventing majorities from silencing those who challenge their prerogatives. Protections for free speech create an enabling environment for creativity, pathbreaking scholarship, scientific progress, and innovation, making possible a dynamic society that can invent ways to improve upon democracy.

Free speech is also a crucial tool to safeguard democratic freedoms when they come under threat. It allows the press and individual citizens to expose corruption and wrongdoing in government and among the powerful while lessening the risk of retaliation. In a society with robust speech protections, advocates of all political persuasions are free to expose and protest curtailments of voting rights and the integrity of electoral systems. Free speech makes it possible to sound the alarm if a society is eroding other democratic values or lurching toward authoritarianism. Without free speech, there is no right to take to the streets in resistance.

This is not to say that democracy and free speech are never in tension. Democratic societies have always debated where free speech should give way to other values, such as national security, public order and welfare, peace, and different conceptions of morality. From the passage of the Sedition Act in 1798 to the jailing of antidraft agitators during World War I to the loyalty oaths required during the Red Scare, free speech has never been absolute in the United States (or in any society). Every generation must revisit thorny questions of how to preserve free speech in an evolving political and social climate in which open discourse brings not just great advantages but genuine risks.

It is not controversial to assert that, in the last decade or two, the relationship between free speech and democracy has come under distinct pressure. There are many reasons for this development, but we can identify three factors in particular: technology, the increasing diversity of our society, and political polarization. These forces have combined to undermine the sanctity of free speech as a principle that transcends partisan politics. 

The rise of digital technologies has challenged the once-vaunted place of free speech in democracy in several ways. In eras dominated by oral and print communication, countering mendacious, hateful, or dangerous speech was a relatively straightforward matter. Even with the advent of radio, film, and television, government officials and the citizenry could generally have confidence, in a liberal spirit, that allowing a wide berth for free speech would allow reason and truth to triumph. In 1927, Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote that the best antidote to “falsehoods and fallacies” is “more speech, not enforced silence.” 9 While the American past has not lacked for episodes of demagoguery, hysteria, and other instances of mass unreason, we have generally placed trust in the Brandeisian formulation.

But new communication mediums (the internet), devices (mobile phones), and platforms (social media and forms of artificial intelligence) have allowed speech to spread with unprecedented rapidity and geographic reach, and to resist countering or correction by traditional authorities. Algorithmically driven online platforms propel speech with a velocity that far outpaces the analog world. Digital media algorithms propagate the posts that animate online users most. Such content disproportionately includes incendiary, hateful, and false speech. Defenders of the wisdom of Brandeis must confront difficult questions about how speech functions online and how its hazards can be managed. 

One paradox that the prevalence of online speech has exposed is that “more” speech can—contra Brandeis—itself serve to enforce silence. A controversial or objectionable post online can unleash a torrent of vitriol and harassment, including physical-world threats and retaliation. The outcry may lead the original speaker to delete the post, close their account, or avoid bringing up the subject of their comment publicly ever again. Others witnessing the abuse may vow never to expose themselves to that kind of menacing outrage. Over time, such effects exert a powerful chilling force on online discourse, circumscribing entire subject areas and perspectives that cannot be touched without unleashing a virtual fusillade.

Online speech is also more easily manipulated than traditional spoken, written, or even broadcast communications. Foreign governments, ideological extremists, and other political operatives have new, cheap, and potent ways to interfere with democratic deliberations, manipulating media, sowing disinformation and fanning distrust in democratic institutions. Traditional First Amendment doctrines, centered on stopping the government from suppressing speech, have little to offer when it comes to these conundrums. Courts are now grappling with whether and how to arbitrate government efforts to intervene in online discourse, including through new laws adopted by Texas and Florida to dictate how social media platforms moderate online content. 10 In the 2022–2023 term, the Supreme Court brushed away two cases claiming that social media companies fostered terrorist content, deciding that the plaintiffs, who were family members of ISIS victims, had failed to state a cognizable claim. 11 The decisions brought little clarity to key questions including whether, and to what degree, the First Amendment constrains the discretion of digital platforms to moderate online content, or what bounds may exist—or be legislatively imposed—to circumscribe the broad immunity from liability that online providers have long enjoyed.

The rise of digital technologies has also coincided with an intensified focus by social activists and institutional leaders on making society more equitable and inclusive according to newer conceptions of what constitutes fairness and equality. Reckoning with institutionalized forms of racism and discrimination has raised questions about how we think and talk about identity, and which experiences and perspectives deserve emphasis. The past exclusion of certain groups from opportunities to publish, broadcast, and create art has given rise to pitched debates over who is entitled to tell which stories and whether new forms of gatekeeping are necessary to ensure that lesser heard voices get their due. The growing visibility and acceptance of gays, lesbians, and transgender people has called into question long-established ways of talking about individuals and families, fueling a harsh and censorious backlash against queer representation in books and culture, especially for the young. With formal equality in spheres including education and employment having now been guaranteed for decades by law and endorsed by society, the lingering residue of entrenched bias implicates how people see and relate to one another, touching unavoidably on how they speak to and about other people. 

Another factor contributing to the encroachment on free speech has been the effort, often born of good intentions, to make sure that American society, as it becomes more racially and ethnically diverse and more tolerant of gender differences, better protects and enables voices long excluded from spheres of discourse. Some critics have turned against free speech because they have come to believe that hateful speech—when directed at members of vulnerable groups—is not just insulting to individuals but threatens the quest to forge a diverse and equitable society. In their view, this threat justifies the silencing of what they deem to be noxious speech—by shouting it down or calling on authorities to withdraw, ban, or punish it if necessary. The argument in favor of vanquishing offensive speech is frequently framed in terms of harm. Some falsely equate wounded feelings or even lingering psychological distress with physical violence, claiming that such repercussions should be grounds to silence speech. Social science research has documented that individuals subjected to pervasive discriminatory language and stereotyping—hearing racial slurs each day as they walk to school, for example—can experience psychological, academic, and even physiological consequences. 12 Short of such calculable and lasting effects, speech may cause people to feel vulnerable or discomforted, or may bring back disturbing memories. But such after­effects, while they may be difficult to endure, cannot be avoided in speech any more than they can be in life writ large. We are bombarded with stimuli on television, in social media, in newspapers, and in other contexts that may give rise to feelings of disquiet or upset. But the argument about harmful speech, rather than being applied with precision and sensitivity to a spectrum of distinct effects—from fleeting upset to lifelong feelings of inferiority—has become elastic and generalized. The putative harms of speech can be speculative, exaggerated, or projected onto others without any sign that actual harm has been experienced by any identifiable individual. Feelings of disquiet, anger, or frustration are too easily conflated with the notion of harm, and used as a justification to shut down speech, or suggest that certain subjects—guns, abortion, or immigration—should be entirely out of bounds for discussion lest someone be “triggered.”

The third factor shaping the place of free speech in American democracy is polarization, which has compounded the perennial problem of hypocrisy in the defense of free speech. Critic and columnist Nat Hentoff’s classic indictment of those who defend “free speech for me, but not for thee” has curdled into an entrenched belief that some speech is more worthy of protection than other, with the “some” determined by who is doing the protecting. 13 Some on the left invoke the potential of “harm” as grounds for shutting down speech on sensitive questions of race, gender, and other topics typically related to identity. Some on the right have convinced themselves that these new left-wing orthodoxies can be countered only through state intervention to dictate what books can be read and what topics studied. Even some right-leaning libertarians have been silent about book and curriculum bans, torn between the ends of combatting wokeness and of fighting censorship. The left, in turn, has protested legislation and book bans that target books by and about specific identities, while remaining mostly silent when conservative speakers are shouted down on campus, in an exercise of the censorious heckler’s veto. For both sides, the principled defense of free speech can be sidelined by the extremes that moral certitude demands.

These many attacks on free speech are corroding American democracy. Encroachments on free speech in education, the proliferation of misleading political propaganda, the denigration of credible journalism, the legitimization of restrictions on the role of the press, mounting constraints on protest and assembly rights—each of these threats has the potential to undermine the project of fortifying democracy. Each should be a call to action in defense of the role of free speech.

In the education arena, both informal censoriousness and official censorship are thwarting the cultivation of a democratic citizenry. A February 2023 study carried out by the University of Wisconsin illustrates a series of interlocking challenges in higher education. 14 When questioned about their willingness to consider viewpoints other than their own on issues such as immigration, abortion, religion, and transgender issues, only 10 percent of students responding said they would be “extremely likely” to consider such opinions. 15 Asked how comfortable they felt expressing their own views on the same set of issues, fewer than 36 percent were at ease voicing their convictions on topics including gun control and police misconduct. 16 Conflating offense with harm, 65 percent of students said that if someone says something offensive, they are at least “somewhat” causing “harm” to those they offend. 17 Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported thinking that expressing “offensive” views can at least “somewhat” be seen as a form of “violence toward vulnerable people.” 18 Substantial portions of students agreed with a series of propositions about the rights and obligations of campus officials and faculty to silence offensive speech. 19 In each of the areas, answers to the questions varied significantly based upon students’ reported political leanings, with progressive students being much more likely to endorse the muzzling of such speech.

Because universities are where many Americans first encounter individuals from backgrounds dissimilar to their own, the chilling of campus speech on sensitive topics sets a dangerous precedent. It teaches young people that in navigating a diverse society, silence and avoidance are key tools. If subjects like affirmative action, women’s rights, trans rights, the war in Gaza, and immigration policy cannot be discussed openly on campus, there is little hope for dealing with them effectively in workplaces or legislatures. To be prepared for their role as citizens, students need skills to confront views they disagree with, marshal evidence behind their viewpoints, find common ground, and compromise. They also need to cultivate the insight and empathy to engage with those who hold sharply different attitudes, rather than vilifying them or simply tuning them out. For colleges to perform their indispensable role in cultivating democratic citizenries, robust and freewheeling campus discourse is essential.

Education is under siege on a second front: the wave of book and curriculum restrictions that have surged since 2021. PEN America has documented more than six thousand instances of book banning, mostly in schools and classrooms but also affecting public libraries, between 2021 and 2024. 20 Overwhelmingly, book bans target stories by and about members of historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups and gay and queer individuals; more than half of all books banned fall into at least one of these categories. 21 And increasingly, book bans are being imposed by state legislation rather than arising from the complaints of individual parents. In some jurisdictions, just a single objection to a book can force volumes off shelves throughout an entire county. Lists of controversial books, or simply books identified as promoting discussion on diversity, are passed around from state to state and district to district as the basis for wholesale bans; a book can be removed from shelves without anyone in the local community having read it. In some districts, the restrictions are so broad and ill-defined that classroom and school libraries have been silenced or emptied of books to avoid falling afoul of the rules. 

New laws are also constricting teaching and learning in K–12 and higher education. Twenty-one states now have laws on the books that PEN America has dubbed “educational gag orders,” to restrict topics, theories, and perspectives that may be introduced in the classroom. 22 The most notorious is Florida’s so-called Don’t Say Gay law, which was expanded by the state school board in April of 2023 to restrict discussions of queer identities not only through the third grade (as had previously been the case) but up through the twelfth grade. 23 Other gag laws restrict discussions of racial justice, aspects of American history, and other topics deemed divisive. Additional measures passed in Florida give parents the right to contest readings and headings on school curricula, abolish campus offices of diversity and inclusion, and aim to fundamentally remake the New College of Florida, a liberal arts university, into a conservative institution modeled on a religious private college. 24  

These measures amount to a response to efforts within schools and universities to serve student populations that are more diverse than ever before in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender. The proponents of these restrictive measures point out, rightly, that some efforts to promote equity and inclusion may be heavy-­handed, reductionist, or even counterproductive. 25

  Theories that are predicated on racial essentialism or pressing individuals to feel guilt over their race or identity are ill-conceived and do not belong in the classroom. But the proper way to handle misguided lesson plans is through established channels of communication between students, parents, teachers, faculty, and administrators. Where curricular materials are poorly thought-out or ill-conceived, the problems should be pointed out and the materials replaced. The imposition of legislation dictating curriculum sends the message that any politically sensitive lessons may prompt reprisals. When such laws are in effect, teachers adopt a cautious approach, skirting controversy and eschewing open discussion. This runs counter to the spirit of unfettered inquiry and freewheeling debate necessary to prepare citizens to engage in the democratic process.

Protest rights are a third arena in which traditional free speech protections are being pared back. Since 2017, when protests erupted after the presidential election of Donald Trump, a wave of bills have been introduced by legislators at the state and federal level to limit assembly rights. 26 These measures are typically invoked in response to mass protest movements, including demonstrations for racial justice, against the creation of new oil and gas pipelines, against speakers considered offensive, and on contentious educational matters. While many such bills are justified by their proponents on the basis that they are necessary to tamp down violence, very few demonstrations in recent years have erupted into unrest, and existing laws against property destruction and lawlessness already allow for prosecution of those who cross the line.

Newly enacted laws narrow protest rights by making it easier for authorities to suppress “rioting,” a vague term that can be used to target peaceful protesters who find themselves at gatherings that teeter on the edge of violence, even if they themselves are not involved in the unrest. 27 Under a 2021 Florida law, the “imminent danger” of destruction of property can qualify as a riot, even if no actual damage occurs. 28 Other measures impose stiff penalties for protests that interfere in any way with the flow of traffic. For example, a measure enacted in Tennessee in 2020 imposes punishments of up to a year in jail for the offense of obstructing a sidewalk or street. 29 Eighteen measures enacted in recent years impose harsh punishments for protests taking place at or near critical infrastructure, including pipelines and other energy facilities. A 2018 Louisiana law provides for up to five years in prison for demonstrators who trespass near the construction site of a pipeline. 30 Eleven new bills impose fines and penalties on protesters for the cost of policing, clean-up, and other administrative burdens associated with the exercise of protest rights. 31 Other measures expand conspiracy provisions to target not just protesters, but those who organize such assemblies. A 2017 law passed in Oklahoma imposes up to $1 million in liability for organizations that “conspire” with protesters who trespass near pipelines. 32 In a direct response to the vehicular murder of pedestrian Heather Heyer during the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, states including Iowa and Florida have passed legislation to shield drivers from civil liability for hitting demonstrators with their vehicles. 33

Conservative legislatures have not been the only institutions to restrict and punish protest. In 2024, in response to student encampments protesting Israel’s conduct in its war in Gaza, many university administrators suspended, expelled from campus, and had arrested student protestors. In some instances, the clampdowns were carried out peacefully as a means of enforcing viewpoint-­neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on demonstrations that were disrupting the campus learning environment. In other cases, university leaders and police resorted to overly aggressive methods of muzzling protests and unduly limiting students’ right to peaceful expression. The controversies raised fresh questions about the proper limits of protest and how they should be enforced.

A free and vibrant press has long been recognized as an essential pillar of democracy. Thomas Jefferson famously concluded that if forced to choose between “a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” 34 But the free press today is under siege as well. Economic pressures and changing consumer habits have all but eliminated the traditional financial base of support for many forms of news. The situation is especially acute for local news, giving rise to an “extinction crisis” for city- and state-based media organizations. 35

  These news outlets have for decades played a crucial part in nurturing an informed citizenry and holding accountable those in government, business, education, and other spheres of power. The crisis has exposed systemic gaps in coverage and the atrophying of relationships between local news outlets and the communities they serve. Inventive new business models and philanthropic interventions are being explored in an effort to shore up these vital local institutions. But it is doubtful that such efforts will ever make up for the $30 billion in lost revenue that resulted from the evaporation of print advertising as media consumption shifted from paper to digital. 36 The loss of local media has had an impact on the vibrancy of local democracy; in communities without local media coverage, polarization has intensified, with voters less likely to split their tickets across political parties and more likely to self-identify as intensely partisan.

In addition to the demise of local media, democracy is being undercut by the eclipse of mainstream national news organizations that we used to rely on to provide a widely trusted collective account of events in our culture and society. Instead, partisan media outlets have arisen, reflecting and reinforcing the sharp bifurcation we see in the political arena. President Donald Trump’s campaign to discredit the media and credible journalism through his cries of “fake news” helped to convince a substantial segment of the voting population that the mainstream media should not be believed. So, too, did some mainstream outlets backing away from neutral, fact-based journalism that aspired to objectivity. 

Coupled with drastic shifts in media consumption from print to online, the result is an information ecosystem in which Americans are adrift in a sea of news sources without the tools to ascertain what to trust, to sniff out motives and biases, or to verify dubious claims. A substantial minority of the U.S. population is in thrall to media sources like Fox News that eschew traditional journalistic norms of objectivity and fact-based reporting. Such audiences are seemingly impervious to revelations that the network has deliberately fed its audience unreliable and false election-related information.

Solidifying free speech as a democratic cornerstone will require concerted action at every level of society, including legislatures, the executive branch, courts, universities, corporations, civic institutions, and more.

Legislators, governors, school board members, and other public officials need to renew their vows of fealty to the First Amendment, reaffirming its place as a constitutional value above politics. Those in leadership positions should enlist experts to inform and enlighten colleagues concerning their First Amendment obligations and why certain types of legislation and decisions run afoul of constitutional protections for free speech. Officials who believe strongly in the First Amendment need to speak out on behalf of speech with which they disagree or that they find objectionable, modeling a principled approach. Legislators should form free speech caucuses that enlist the advice of scholars and legal practitioners to advise them on proposed legislation and to rally across political and ideological lines in support of free speech principles. Officials should hold town hall meetings to educate their constituents about free speech and explain how the First Amendment and free speech protections influence policy. They should engage openly with credible journalists and resist the temptation to vilify the press, even in the face of critical media coverage.

Courts have a crucial role to play in applying First Amendment principles neutrally and fairly, notwithstanding their own ideological leanings. At a time of expanding resort to bans on books and curriculum, courts need to fill in gaps in existing case law to fortify the freedom to read, teach, and learn. 

Schools and universities are laboratories for democracy and training grounds for the exercise of free speech rights. But free speech, and civic education more broadly, has fallen out of favor in the U.S. educational system, sidelined in favor of science, technology, engineering, and math. The future of American democracy will depend upon a concerted push to educate rising generations of citizens in the principles of coexistence within a pluralistic polity, including respect for free speech rights. Curricula on free speech rights should be introduced from a young age, when pupils can make an intuitive link between their own desire to express their wishes and ideas and the principle of open discourse in society. When young people are introduced to the precepts of free speech and helped to understand the vast differences between open and autocratic societies, they become inspired by the benefits of free speech and are more willing to defend it. American history, government, and world history curricula should introduce students to the place of free speech and free press in democracies, and how it has been tested over time. 

On college campuses, just as students are introduced through first-year orientations or similar programs to policies and culture regarding sexual assault, discrimination, and other fundamentals, so, too, should they be exposed to the role and importance of free speech as foundational to their college experience. Such training and education sessions can offer opportunities to voice and explore the linkages and tensions between free speech, diversity, and inclusion, helping students to see how these precepts can be reconciled and even mutually reinforcing. In the classroom, professors should introduce free speech norms at the beginning of each semester, stressing the importance of conscientiousness with language, but also encouraging students to be comfortable speaking their minds. They should also check periodically to assess whether students from varied backgrounds and perspectives feel able to voice their viewpoints in class and other discussions. 

Just as universities have established offices or committees for diversity, equity, and inclusion, religious affairs, and other priority facets of campus life, they should consider creating focused functions for the promotion and defense of free speech, such as campus-wide education and celebration, and providing advice to students, faculty, and administrators on free speech questions. Campus leaders should seize opportunities to communicate the importance of free speech, speaking up forthrightly in response to incidents when free speech principles are challenged. 

Other societal institutions also have a role to play in fostering open discourse in our culture, pushing back against the demise and denigration of journalism, providing platforms for controversial viewpoints, and standing on the side of free speech when there are calls to ban or punish expression. Philanthropists, for example, should integrate support for free speech into their agendas to shore up democracy by funding litigation, public awareness, campaigning, advocacy, and public outreach. Other components of the private sector also have a role to play. This includes entertainment companies that platform edgy satirists, book publishers that put out works by politically and ideologically diverse authors, media outlets that seek to expose their audiences to heterodox views, and corporations of all kinds that demonstrate respect for speech rights within the ranks of their employees. As a society, we should maintain and defend those remaining institutions that serve ideologically diverse groups of consumers. Extending political litmus tests risks turning even more of our collective discourse into the balkanized world of cable news, where entire outlets are devoted to programming on just one side of the political spectrum.

Free speech is the lifeblood of American democracy. With democracy ailing, a recommitment to free speech must be part of the cure. 

• 1 See Suzanne Trimel, “ These 4 Florida Bills Censor Classroom Subjects and Ideas ,” PEN America, July 13, 2022.
• 2 For example, see Bipartisan Policy Center, Examining Student Self-Censorship on College Campuses , January 14, 2022 (“evidence continues to point toward a growing reluctance, particularly among students, to express themselves openly”).
• 3 For example, see PEN America, “ Student Disruption of a Judge’s Speech at Stanford U Deserved a Forceful Defense of Free Speech by the Administration ,” March 14, 2023 (“‘When a speaker has been invited to campus, they deserve the ability to speak and be heard,’ said Kristen Shahverdian, senior manager in free expression and education”).
• 4 For example, see Robin Abcarian, “ Firing an Art History Professor for Showing Students an Image of the Prophet Muhammad Is Out of Line ,” Los Angeles Times , January 11, 2023 (“PEN America, which supports free expression, accused Hamline of ‘academic malpractice’ and called its treatment of López Prater, who did not respond to my request for comment, ‘one of the most egregious violations of academic freedom in recent memory’”).
• 5 See PEN America, “ PEN America Files Lawsuit Against Florida School District Over Unconstitutional Book Bans ,” May 17, 2023.
• 6 See Mike Schneider, “ Illustrated Anne Frank Book Removed by Florida School ,” AP News, April 13, 2023.
• 7 See Adam Liptak, “ For Justices, Free Speech Often Means ‘Speech I Agree With,’ ” The New York Times , May 5, 2014.
• 8 For example, see Margaret Sullivan, “ Every Week, Two More Newspapers Close—and ‘News Deserts’ Grow Larger ,” The Washington Post , June 29, 2022.
• 9 See Tatiana Serafin, “ Brandeis Concurring with Holmes in Whitney v. California , 1927 ,” First Amendment Watch, September 30, 2022.
• 10 For example, see Lizzie Leary, “ A Looming Legal Battle Could Change Social Media Forever ,” Slate , September 27, 2022.
• 11 For example, see Nina Totenberg, “ Supreme Court Unanimously Sides with Twitter in Isis Attack Case ,” NPR, May 18, 2023.
• 12 For example, see April D. Thames, Charles H. Hinkin, Desiree A. Byrd, et al., “ Effects of Stereotype Threat, Perceived Discrimination, and Examiner Race on Neuropsychological Performance: Simple as Black and White? ” Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 19 (5) (2013): 583 (“African Americans who reported high levels of perceived discrimination performed significantly worse on memory tests when tested by an examiner of a different race”).
• 13 Nat Hentoff, Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (New York: HarperCollins, 1992).
• 14 April Bleske-Rechek, Eric Giordano, Eric Kasper, et al., UW System Student Views on Freedom of Speech: Summary of Survey Responses (Madison: University of Wisconsin System, 2023).
• 15 Ibid., 18.
• 16 Ibid., 19.
• 17 Ibid., 24.
• 19 Ibid., 29.
• 20 PEN America, Banned in the USA: Narrating the Crisis (New York: PEN America, 2024); and PEN America, “ 2023 Banned Books Update: Banned in the USA ,” April 20, 2023.
• 25 See Elizabeth A. Harris and Alexandra Alter, “ Book Ban Efforts Spread Across the U.S. ,” The New York Times , January 30, 2022 (“Those who are demanding certain books be removed insist this is an issue of parental rights and choice, that all parents should be free to direct the upbringing of their own children”).
• 26 See Nora Benavidez, James Tager, and Andy Gottlieb, “ Closing Ranks: State Legislators Deepen Assaults on the Right to Protest ,” PEN America, June 1, 2021.
• 28 See ACLU Florida, “ What Did HB 1 Do? ” April 21, 2021.
• 29 See Natalie Allison, “ Tennessee Legislature Cracks Down on Protesters ,” The Tennessean , August 13, 2020.
• 30 See “ Pipeline Opponents Challenge Louisiana Law Targeting Protesters ,” Reuters, May 22, 2019.
• 31 For example, see Janelle Griffith, “ N.Y. County Exec Vetoes Bill That Would Allow Police to Sue Protesters ,” NBC News, August 11, 2021.
• 32 PEN America, Arresting Dissent: Legislative Restrictions on The Right to Protest (New York: PEN America, 2020), 15, 33–34.
• 33 Ibid., 24.
• 34 Extract from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington , January 16, 1787, Jefferson Quotes and Family Letters (accessed May 30, 2024).
• 35 Sullivan, “Every Week, Two More Newspapers Close.”
• 36 Michael Barthel, “ Despite Subscription Surges for Largest U.S. Newspapers, Circulation and Revenue Fall for Industry Overall ,” Pew Research Center, June 1, 2017.