Direct Democracy origin dates back to around 5th century BC. Direct Democracy took roots in Greece as a form of government. Since the origin of Direct Democracy it has evolved tremendously and spread across many nations through the ages. To completely understand the concept of Direct Democracy, it is necessary to know everything from its emergence to its evolution into what we can call as modern Direct Democracy. Hence, it becomes essential to study these changes throughtout the history of Direct Democracy.
The description of any type of government is incomplete without knowing its origin and roots. Direct Democracy history takes us back to the time of its emergence and describes its foundation. One of the things that would fascinate us is the situation which gave rise to Direct Democracy. When Direct Democracy was first established, its ideology was completely different than what it is now. Also, various Types of Democracy emerged over time due to the fact that social and economic political conditions were different in different countries.
A common factor between all the types of government is that, they need leaders in order to advocate their ideologies. For a country to accept a type of government, it is necessary that they know the concept of that government. How many people hold power in a society, and how they exercise it, are eternal themes of political debate. At one extreme a single person rules.
Such a system is usually called a monarchy Greek for 'rule by one' when the position can be inherited within a family. It is likely to be given such names as tyranny from examples in Greek history or dictatorship from Rome when power is seized by or granted to an individual member of society.
The other extreme is democracy Greek for 'power of the people' , in which theoretically every adult can influence group decisions. Such an egalitarian approach is familiar to anthropologists, studying the customs of small tribal groups, but it has been a rarity in more developed societies.
Between the two extremes is oligarchy Greek for 'rule by a few'. In a sense all early clashes between oligarchy and democracy are an argument over how many to include in the few, with democrats pressing for a higher figure than oligarchs can accept. Even in Athens, where sophisticated democracy begins, only a small proportion of the community can vote.
In the 5th century BC Athens pioneers an experiment in direct democracy, as opposed to the representative democracy of modern societies. It is copied by her Greek allies and colonies at the time, but it has rarely been attempted anywhere else since Switzerland in the 13th century is one example.
Democracy of this kind has two preconditions. The community must be small enough for citizens to be capable of attending debates and voting on issues. And its economy must give these citizens enough leisure to engage in politics; in the ancient world this means that there must be slaves to do most of the work.
Both circumstances prevail in Athens. The citizen democrats of Athens are those males, over the age of eighteen, who are sons of an Athenian father after BC the mother must be Athenian as well.
They number no more than 50, in the whole of Attica. In addition to these citizens the population includes about 25, metics metoikoi , or foreigners trading in Athens, for this is a major commercial centre , together with free women and children and perhaps , slaves. This gives a total of about , people. For example, it fails to capture corruption or human rights adequately — and in any case, it probably makes better sense for us to measure these separately.
The chart below is taken from Wilhelmsen These are the Polyarchy measure, the Polity measure, and the Freedom House measure. The Polyarchy and Polity measures go back to the early 19th century.
The Freedom House measure shows the percentage of independent countries that are democratic. You can see that while these measures do not exactly coincide, they do largely move together. An overview of measures is presented at www. This project undertakes a qualitative analysis of party manifestos for 50 countries since Notice: This is only a preliminary collection of relevant material The data and research currently presented here is a preliminary collection or relevant material.
All our charts on Democracy Age of democracies Child mortality vs type of political regime Education in the past vs democracy today GDP per capita vs type of political regime Human Rights Score vs. Political regime type Internationally observed elections Internationally observed elections by Western monitors Internationally observed elections by Western monitors Is the chief executive and legislature appointed through popular elections?
Is voting compulsory in national elections? Life expectancy vs. Liberal Democracy Index Life expectancy vs. Political regime Number of national elections held per year Numbers of autocracies and democracies Political Competition Political Regime Political Regime — distinction democracies and full democracies Political Regimes Political competition Political participation Political regime type vs.
Mean years of schooling Share of adults who have the right to vote Vanhanen's Index of Democracy World citizens living under different political regimes. Empirical View. Click to open interactive version.
Countries with better education in the past are more likely to be democracies today. Living conditions in democratic countries. Democratic countries are richer — the exception are fossil-fuel exporters. People in democracies are healthier. Democracies are better at protecting human rights. In our opinion, the best available measure is the Human Rights Protection Score developed by Fariss 3 The Human Rights Protection Score focuses on the protection of the physical integrity of citizens.
Does democratization impact education? We now briefly discuss several channels through which democratization might improve education: Electoral competition in democracies increases the incentive to abolish school fees Harding and Stasavage 9 find that democratization has a positive effect on primary education.
Data Quality. Why we chose Polity IV as the main source for democracy measures. Comparison of different regime measures. Share of democracies of independent countries, — — Wilhelmsen. Data Sources. Polity Index. Data: Many different measures — listed here. Most commonly used is the Polity2 measure which measures political systems on a spectrum between autocracy and democracy. If these traces of the past are a bad joke, the failure to address present realities is even more serious.
The rapidly growing new industrial cities are for the most part unrepresented in parliament. A significant step in the crescendo of demand for reform comes in when the Tory majority in the house of commons rejects a bill to extend the franchise to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester.
By the end of Wellington's Tory government has fallen. A new Whig ministry, headed by Earl Grey, is committed to parliamentary reform. By March a bill is ready. Presented to the house of commons by Lord John Russell, the bill causes astonished delight in the country, and outrage on the Tory benches, by the bold sweep of its proposals.
Most of the pocket and rotten boroughs are abolished, with their seats in the house transferred to the industrial cities; the property qualification for electors, previously different all over the country, is rationalized. Debate rages for seven nights, and when the time comes for a vote the result could hardly be more dramatic. The bill passes by a majority of one. Grey and his cabinet persuade the king by now William IV to dissolve parliament for an election to be held, effectively on this one issue.
During the campaign there are passionate meetings and rallies around the country - mainly attended by people unable to vote, since the election is still on unreformed lines. The Whigs sweep in with a majority of more than , and immediately carry in the house of commons a second Reform Bill.
It is rejected in the lords in October by a majority of forty-one. A third and modified bill is carried in the commons in March , and then in the lords by a small majority of nine. But crisis strikes when this bill too is rejected by the peers at the committee stage in May. The Whig cabinet resigns and Wellington attempts to form a government committed to more moderate reform.
In the mood of the country few members of parliament will support him, and within a few days he recommends that the king recall Grey.
The Whigs return, with the king's reluctant agreement to create sufficient new peers to carry the bill if necessary. But Wellington now exerts himself to ensure acceptance by the lords. On 7 June the bill receives the royal assent and becomes the Reform Act. Representation of the people:
0コメント