   #copyright

Liberal democracy

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Politics and government

   Liberal democracy is a form of government. It is a representative
   democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to
   exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and
   usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of
   the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on
   the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be
   exercised against the rights of minorities.

   The rights and freedoms protected by the constitutions of liberal
   democracies are varied, but they usually include most of the following:
   rights to due process, privacy, property and equality before the law,
   and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. In liberal democracies
   these rights (also known as "liberal rights") may sometimes be
   constitutionally guaranteed, or are otherwise created by statutory law
   or case law, which may in turn empower various civil institutions to
   administer or enforce these rights.

   Liberal democracies also tend to be characterized by tolerance and
   pluralism; widely differing social and political views, even those
   viewed as extreme or fringe, are permitted to co-exist and compete for
   political power on a democratic basis. Liberal democracies periodically
   hold elections where groups with differing political views have the
   opportunity to achieve political power. In practice, these elections
   are nearly always won by groups who support liberal democracy; thus the
   system perpetuates itself.

   The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the
   government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of
   liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that the initial
   framework for modern liberal democracy was created during the Age of
   Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty. They emphasized the
   right of the individual to have immunity from the arbitrary exercise of
   authority. At present, there are numerous different political
   ideologies that support liberal democracy. Examples include
   conservatism, Christian Democracy, social democracy and some forms of
   socialism.

   A liberal democracy may take the form of a constitutional republic or a
   constitutional monarchy.

Structure

   Liberal democracies today usually have universal suffrage, granting all
   adult citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property
   ownership. However, especially historically, some countries regarded as
   liberal democracies have had a more limited franchise. There may also
   be qualifications like a registration procedure to be allowed to vote.
   The decisions taken through elections are taken not by all of the
   citizens, but rather by those who choose to participate by voting.

   The elections should be free and fair. The political process should be
   competitive. Political pluralism is usually defined as the presence of
   multiple and distinct political parties.

   The liberal democratic constitution defines the democratic character of
   the state. The purpose of a constitution is often seen as a limit on
   the authority of the government. The American political tradition
   emphasise the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a
   system of checks and balances between branches of government. Many
   European democracies are more likely to emphasise the importance of the
   state being a Rechtsstaat that follows the principle of rule of law.
   Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance
   with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in
   accordance with established procedure. Many democracies use federalism
   - (also known as vertical separation of powers) - in order to prevent
   abuse and increase public input by dividing governing powers between
   municipal, provincial and national governments.
   Eduskunta. Several nations and territories can present arguments for
   being the first with universal suffrage. The Grand Duchy of Finland had
   complete universal suffrage in 1906.
   Enlarge
   Eduskunta. Several nations and territories can present arguments for
   being the first with universal suffrage. The Grand Duchy of Finland had
   complete universal suffrage in 1906.

Rights and freedoms

   The most often quoted criteria for liberal democracy take the form of
   specific rights and freedoms. They were originally considered essential
   for the functioning of a liberal democracy, but they have acquired such
   prominence in its definition, that many people now think they are
   democracy. Since no state wants to admit it is "unfree", and since its
   enemies may be depicted as "tyrannies" by its propagandists, they are
   also usually contested.
     * Right to life and security of person.
     * Freedom from slavery.
     * Freedom of movement.
     * Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law.
     * Freedom of speech.
     * Freedom of information.
     * Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources.
     * Freedom of association and assembly .
     * Freedom of education.
     * Freedom of religion.
     * An independent judiciary
     * The right to own property, and to buy and sell the same, is often
       seen as a liberal freedom bound up with the above, though this is a
       very hotly contested proposition.

   In practice, democracies do have specific limits on specific freedoms.
   There are various legal limitations like copyright and laws against
   defamation. There may be limits on anti-democratic speech, on attempts
   to undermine human rights, and on the promotion or justification of
   terrorism. In the United States more than in Europe, during the Cold
   War, such restrictions applied to Communists. Now they are more
   commonly applied to organizations perceived as promoting terrorism or
   the incitement of group hatred. Examples include anti-terrorism
   legislation, the shutting down of Hezbollah satellite broadcasts, and
   laws against hate speech. Critics claim that these limitations may go
   too far and that there may be no due and fair judicial process.

   The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to
   guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms
   themselves. For example, allowing free speech for those advocating mass
   murder undermines the right to life and security. Opinion is divided on
   how far democracy can extend, to include the enemies of democracy in
   the democratic process. If relatively small numbers of people are
   excluded from such freedoms for these reasons, a country may still be
   seen as a liberal democracy. Some argue that this is not qualitatively
   different from autocracies that persecutes opponents, but only
   quantitatively different, since only a small number of people are
   affected and the restrictions are less severe. Others emphasize that
   democracies are different. At least in theory, also opponents of
   democracy are allowed due process under the rule of law. In principle,
   democracies allow critic and change of the leaders and the political
   and economic system itself; it is only attempts to do so violently and
   promotion of such violence that is prohibited.

Preconditions

   Although they are not part of the system of government as such, the
   presence of a middle class, and a broad and flourishing civil society
   are often seen as pre-conditions for liberal democracy.

   For countries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule,
   the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to
   achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy; a wider shift in
   the political culture and gradual formation of the institutions of
   democratic government are needed. There are various examples, like in
   Latin America, of countries that were able to sustain democracy only
   temporarily or in limited form until wider cultural changes occurred to
   allow true majority rule.

   One of the key aspects of democratic culture is the concept of a "
   loyal opposition". This is an especially difficult cultural shift to
   achieve in nations where transitions of power have historically taken
   place through violence. The term means, in essence, that all sides in a
   democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political
   competitors may disagree, but they must tolerate one another and
   acknowledge the legitimate and important roles that each play. The
   ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in
   public debate. In such a society, the losers accept the judgment of the
   voters when the election is over, and allow for the peaceful transfer
   of power. The losers are safe in the knowledge that they will neither
   lose their lives nor their liberty, and will continue to participate in
   public life. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the
   government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the
   democratic process itself.

The origins of liberal democracy

   The Liberalism series,
   part of the Politics series
   Development
   History of liberal thought
   Contributions to liberal theory
   Schools
   Classical liberalism
   Conservative liberalism
   Cultural liberalism
   Economic liberalism
   Libertarianism
   Neoliberalism
   Ordoliberalism
   Paleoliberalism
   Social liberalism
   National variants
   American liberalism
   Canadian liberalism
   Australian liberalism
   British liberalism
   Ideas
   Individual rights
   Individualism
   Liberal democracy
   Liberal neutrality
   Negative & positive Liberty
   Free market
   Mixed economy
   Open society
   Organizations
   Liberal parties worldwide
   Liberal International · Iflry
   ELDR/ ALDE · Lymec
   CALD · ALN · Relial. CLH
     __________________________________________________________________

   Politics Portal

   Liberal democracy traces its origins - and its name - to the European
   18th century, also known as the Age of Enlightenment. At the time, the
   vast majority of European states were monarchies, with political power
   held either by the monarch or the aristocracy. The possibility of
   democracy had not been seriously considered by political theory since
   classical antiquity, and the widely held belief was that democracies
   would be inherently unstable and chaotic in their policies due to the
   changing whims of the people. It was further believed that democracy
   was contrary to human nature, as human beings were seen to be
   inherently evil, violent and in need of a strong leader to restrain
   their destructive impulses. Many European monarchs held that their
   power had been ordained by God, and that questioning their right to
   rule was tantamount to blasphemy.

   These conventional views were challenged at first by a relatively small
   group of Enlightenment intellectuals, who believed that human affairs
   should be guided by reason and principles of liberty and equality. They
   argued that all people are created equal, and therefore political
   authority cannot be justified on the basis of "noble blood", a supposed
   privileged connection to God, or any other characteristic that is
   alleged to make one person superior to others. They further argued that
   governments exist to serve the people, not vice versa, and that laws
   should apply to those who govern as well as to the governed (a concept
   known as rule of law).

   Near the end of the 18th century, these ideas inspired the American
   Revolution and the French Revolution, which gave birth to the ideology
   of liberalism and instituted forms of government that attempted to
   apply the principles of the Enlightenment philosophers into practice.
   Neither of these forms of government was precisely what we would call a
   liberal democracy we know today (the most significant difference being
   that voting rights were still restricted to a minority of the
   population), and the French attempt turned out to be short-lived, but
   they were the prototypes from which liberal democracy later grew. Since
   the supporters of these forms of government were known as liberals, the
   governments themselves came to be known as liberal democracies.

   When the first prototypical liberal democracies were founded, the
   liberals themselves were viewed as an extreme and rather dangerous
   fringe group that threatened international peace and stability. The
   conservative monarchists who opposed liberalism and democracy saw
   themselves as defenders of traditional values and the natural order of
   things, and their criticism of democracy seemed vindicated when
   Napoleon Bonaparte took control of the young French Republic,
   reorganized it into the first French Empire and proceeded to conquer
   most of Europe. Napoleon was eventually defeated and the Holy Alliance
   was formed in Europe to prevent any further spread of liberalism or
   democracy. However, liberal democratic ideals soon became widespread
   among the general population, and, over the 19th century, traditional
   monarchy was forced on a continuous defensive and withdrawal. Reforms
   and revolutions helped move most European countries towards liberal
   democracy. Liberalism ceased being a fringe opinion and joined the
   political mainstream. At the same time, a number of non-liberal
   ideologies developed that took the concept of liberal democracy and
   made it their own. The political spectrum changed; traditional monarchy
   became more and more a fringe view and liberal democracy became more
   and more mainstream. By the end of the 19th century, liberal democracy
   was no longer only a "liberal" idea, but an idea supported by many
   different ideologies. After World War I and especially after World War
   II, liberal democracy achieved a dominant position among theories of
   government and is now endorsed by the vast majority of the political
   spectrum.

Liberal democracies around the world

   This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the
   World 2006. Freedom House considers the green nations to be liberal
   democracies. Some of these estimates are disputed. ██ Free
   ██ Partly Free    ██ Not Free
   Enlarge
   This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the
   World 2006. Freedom House considers the green nations to be liberal
   democracies. Some of these estimates are disputed.

   ██ Free        ██ Partly Free    ██ Not Free
   This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories
   given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005
   Enlarge
   This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories
   given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972- 2005
   States by their systems of government as of April 2006. ██ presidential
   republics, full presidential system ██ presidential republics,
   executive presidency linked to a parliament ██ presidential republics,
   semi-presidential system ██ parliamentary republics ██ parliamentary
   constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not personally
   exercise power ██ constitutional monarchies in which the monarch
   personally exercises power, often alongside a weak parliament
   ██ absolute monarchies ██ states whose constitutions grant only a
   single party the right to govern ██ military dictatorships
   Enlarge
   States by their systems of government as of April 2006.
     __________________________________________________________________

   ██ presidential republics, full presidential system ██ presidential
   republics, executive presidency linked to a parliament ██ presidential
   republics, semi-presidential system ██ parliamentary republics
   ██ parliamentary constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does
   not personally exercise power ██ constitutional monarchies in which the
   monarch personally exercises power, often alongside a weak parliament
   ██  absolute monarchies ██ states whose constitutions grant only a
   single party the right to govern ██ military dictatorships
   The above image include only those states designated "electoral
   democracies" in Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2006. Note
   that not all nations which are officially democracies (as indicated by
   the middle image) are considered to be democratic in practice (as
   indicated by the last image).
   Enlarge
   The above image include only those states designated " electoral
   democracies" in Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2006. Note
   that not all nations which are officially democracies (as indicated by
   the middle image) are considered to be democratic in practice (as
   indicated by the last image).

   Several organisations and political scientists maintain lists of free
   and unfree states, both in the present and going back a couple
   centuries. Of these, the best known may be the Polity Data Set and that
   produced by Freedom House.

   There is general agreement that the states of the European Union,
   Japan, the United States, Canada, India, South Africa, Australia, and
   New Zealand are liberal democracies.

   Freedom House considers many of the officially democratic governments
   in Africa and the former Soviet Union to be undemocratic in practice,
   usually because the sitting government has a strong influence over
   election outcomes. Many of these countries are in a state of
   considerable flux.

   Officially non-democratic forms of government, such as single-party
   states and dictatorships are more common in East Asia, the Middle East,
   and North Africa.

Types of liberal democracies

De facto liberal democracies

   Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while
   other forms are technically the case; for example, the Canadian
   monarchy is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament. In
   the United Kingdom, the sovereign is the hereditary monarch, but the de
   facto (legislative) sovereign is the people, via their elected
   representatives in Parliament, hence a democracy.

   Many disagree with any form of hereditary privilege, including
   monarchy. Monarchists reply that the monarchy in these nations is
   almost entirely ceremonial rather than political.

Proportional and plurality representation

   Plurality voting system award seats according to regional majorities.
   The political party or individual candidate who receives the most
   votes, wins the seat which represents that locality. There are other
   democratic electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional
   representation, which award seats according to the proportion of
   individual votes that a party receives nation-wide or in a particular
   region.

   One of the main points of contention between these two systems, is
   whether to have representatives who are able to effectively represent
   specific regions in a country, or to have all citizens' vote count the
   same, regardless of where in the country they happen to live.

   Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand, address the conflict
   between these two forms of representation, by having two categories of
   seats in the lower house of their federal legislative bodies. The first
   category of seats is appointed according to regional popularity, and
   the remainder are awarded to give the parties a proportion of seats
   that is equal - or as equal as practicable - to their proportion of
   nation-wide votes. This system is commonly called mixed member
   proportional representation.

Presidential and parliamentary systems

   A presidential system is a system of government of a republic where the
   executive branch is elected separately from the legislative. A
   parliamentary system is distinguished by the executive branch of
   government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the
   parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence.

   The presidential system of democratic government has become popular in
   Latin America, Africa, and parts of the former Soviet Union, largely by
   the example of the United States. Constitutional monarchies (dominated
   by elected parliaments) are popular in Northern Europe and some former
   colonies which peacefully separated, such as Australia and Canada.
   Others have also arisen in Spain, East Asia, and a variety of small
   nations around the world. Former British territories such as South
   Africa, India, Ireland, and the United States opted for different forms
   at the time of independence. The parliamentary system is popular in the
   European Union and neighboring countries.

Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy

Direct democracy

   Some argue that "liberal democracy" does not respect absolute majority
   rule (except when electing representatives). The "liberty" of majority
   rule is restricted by the constitution or precedent decided by previous
   generations. Also, the real power is actually held by a relatively
   small representative body. Thus, the argument goes, "liberal democracy"
   is merely a decoration over an oligarchy. A system of direct democracy
   would be preferable. New technology, such as E-democracy, may make
   direct democracy easier to implement.

   Others would say that only a liberal democracy can guarantee the
   individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a
   dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could, in this view, lead to an
   oppression of minorities. Another argument is that the elected leaders
   may be more interested and able than the average voter. A third that it
   takes much effort and time if everyone should gather information,
   discuss, and vote on most issues.

   Some liberal democracies have elements of direct democracy such as
   referenda and plebiscite. Switzerland and Uruguay are some examples;
   likewise several states of the United States. Many other countries have
   referenda to a lesser degree in their political system.

Ethnic and religious conflicts

   For historical reasons, many states are not culturally and ethnically
   homogeneous. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and
   cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to
   each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation
   in decision-making theoretically also allows the use of the political
   process against 'enemy' groups. That may be especially visible during
   democratisation, if the previous non-democratic government oppressed
   certain groups. It is also visible in established democracies, in the
   form of anti-immigrant populism. However, arguably the worst
   repressions have occurred in states without universal suffrage, like
   apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.

   The collapse of the Soviet Union and the partial democratisation of
   Soviet bloc states was followed by wars and civil war in the former
   Yugoslavia, in the Caucasus, and in Moldova. Nevertheless, statistical
   research shows that the fall of Communism and the increase in the
   number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic
   decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary
   wars, and the number of refugees and displaced people. See also the
   section below on Majoritarianism and Democratic peace theory.

Bureaucracy

   A persistent libertarian and monarchist critique of democracy is the
   claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law
   without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws.
   This is seen as pernicious in several ways. New laws constrict the
   scope of what were previously private liberties. Rapidly changing laws
   make it difficult for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding.
   This may be an invitation for law-enforcement agencies to misuse power.
   The claimed continual complication of the law may be contrary to a
   claimed simple and eternal natural law - although there is no consensus
   on what this natural law is, even among advocates. Supporters of
   democracy point to the complex bureaucracy and regulations that has
   occurred in dictatorships, like many of the former Communist states.

   Liberal democracies are also criticised for a claimed slowness and
   complexity of their decision-making.

Short-term focus

   Modern liberal democracies, by definition, allow for regular changes of
   government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term
   focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election,
   and it must think of how it will win that election. That would
   encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits
   to the electorate (or to self-interested politicians) before the next
   election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits. This
   criticism assumes that it is possible to make long term predictions for
   a society, something Karl Popper has criticized as historicism.

   Besides the regular review of governing entities, short-term focus in a
   democracy could also be the result of collective short-term thinking.
   For example, consider a campaign for policies aimed at reducing
   environmental damage while causing temporary increase in unemployment.
   However, this risk applies also to other political systems.

Public choice theory

   Public choice theory is a branch of economics that studies the
   decision-making behaviour of voters, politicians and government
   officials from the perspective of economic theory. One studied problem
   is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have a
   rational ignorance regarding political issues. This may allow special
   interest groups to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them
   but harmful to society. However, special interest groups may be equally
   or more influential in nondemocracies.

Plutocracy

   Marxists, socialists and anarchists, argue that liberal democracy is an
   integral part of the capitalist system and is class-based and not fully
   democratic or participatory. It is bourgeois democracy where only the
   most financially powerful people rule. Because of this it is seen as
   fundamentally un-egalitarian, existing or operating in a way that
   facilitates economic exploitation.

   The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may
   mean that the system favours the rich, a form of plutocracy who may be
   a very small minority of the voters. In Athenian democracy, some public
   offices were randomly allocated to citizens, in order to inhibit the
   effects of plutocracy. Modern democracy may also be regarded as a
   dishonest farce used to keep the masses from getting restless, or a
   conspiracy for making them restless for some political agenda. It may
   encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering
   favorable legislation if the candidate is elected - perpetuating
   conspiracies for monopolization of key areas. Campaign finance reform
   is an attempt to correct this perceived problem. However, United States
   economist Steven Levitt claims in his book Freakonomics, that campaign
   spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral
   success of the same pair of candidates running against one another
   repeatedly for the same job, as often happens in United States
   Congressional elections, where spending levels varied. He concludes:

          "A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only
          1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles
          his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favour by only
          that same 1 percent."

   Ownership of the media by the few may lead to more specific distortion
   of the electoral process, since the media are themselves a vital
   element of that process. Some critics argue that criticism of the
   status quo or a particular agenda tends to be suppressed by such media
   cartels, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that
   constitutionally protected freedom of speech makes it possible for both
   for-profit and non-profit organizations to debate the issues. They
   argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public
   preferences, and does not entail censorship.

Majoritarianism

   The "tyranny of the majority" is the fear that a democratic government,
   reflecting the majority view, can take action that oppresses a
   particular minority. Theoretically, the majority could only be a
   majority of those who vote and not a majority of the citizens. In those
   cases, one minority tyrannizes another minority in the name of the
   majority. It can apply in both direct democracy or representative
   democracy.

   Possible examples include:
     * those potentially subject to conscription are a minority.
     * several European countries have introduced bans on personal
       religious symbols in public schools. Opponents see this as a
       violation of rights to freedom of religion. Supporters see it as
       following from the separation of state and religious activities.
     * prohibition of pornography is typically determined by what the
       majority is prepared to accept.
     * recreational drug use is also typically legalised (or at least
       tolerated) to the degree that the majority finds acceptable. Users
       may see themselves as an oppressed minority, victims of
       unjustifiable criminalisation.
     * society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context.
       Homosexual acts were widely criminalised in democracies until
       several decades ago; in some democracies they still are, reflecting
       the religious or sexual mores of the majority.
     * the Athenian democracy and the early United States had slavery.
     * the majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at
       progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy
       will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes. However, this
       is generally offset to some degree, by their better access to
       relevant expert advice (tax consultants and lawyers).
     * in prosperous western democracies, the poor form a minority of the
       population, and may be disadvantaged by a majority who resent
       transfer taxation. Especially when they form a distinct underclass,
       the majority may use the democratic process to, in effect, withdraw
       the protection of the state.
     * An often quoted example of the 'tyranny of the majority' is that
       Adolf Hitler came to power by legitimate democratic procedures. The
       Nazi party gained the largest share of votes in the democratic
       Weimar republic in 1933. Some might consider this an example of
       "tyranny of a minority" since he never gained a majority vote, but
       it is common for a plurality to exercise power in democracies, so
       the rise of Hitler can not be considered irrelevant. However, his
       regime's large-scale human rights violations took place after the
       democratic system had been abolished. Also, the Weimar constitution
       in an "emergency" allowed dictatorial powers and suspension of the
       essentials of the constitution itself without any vote or election,
       something not possible in most liberal democracies.

   Proponents of democracy make a number of defences concerning 'tyranny
   of the majority'. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution
   protecting the rights of all citizens in many democratic countries acts
   as a safeguard. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the
   agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require
   a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards
   have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the
   representatives separated by an election, or, sometimes, a referendum.
   These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into
   legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it
   more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a
   majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still
   ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and,
   as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the
   people to agree to such actions.

   Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly
   different shape on different issues. People often agree with the
   majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other
   issues. One's view may also change. Thus, the members of a majority may
   limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future
   themselves be in a minority.

   A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is
   preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any
   case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. All the possible
   problems mentioned above can also occur in nondemocracies with the
   added problem that a minority can oppress the majority. Proponents of
   democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that
   more democracy leads to less internal violence and mass murder by the
   government.. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states
   that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their
   rulers are to murder them.

Political stability

   One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the
   public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for
   government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and
   instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree
   with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change
   those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree.
   This is preferable to a system where political change takes place
   through violence.

   Some think that political stability may be considered as excessive when
   the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. On
   the other hand, this is more common in nondemocracies.

   One notable feature of liberal democracies is that their opponents
   (those groups who wish to abolish liberal democracy) rarely win
   elections. Advocates use this as an argument to support their view that
   liberal democracy is inherently stable and can usually only be
   overthrown by external force, while opponents argue that the system is
   inherently stacked against them despite its claims to impartiality. In
   the past, it was feared that democracy could be easily exploited by
   leaders with dictatorial aspirations, who could get themselves elected
   into power. However, the actual number of liberal democracies that have
   elected dictators into power is low. When it has occurred, it is
   usually after a major crisis have caused many people to doubt the
   system or in young/poorly functioning democracies. Some possible
   examples include Adolf Hitler during the Great Depression and Napoleon
   III who become first President of the young Second French Republic and
   later Emperor.

Effective response in wartime

   A liberal democracy, by definition, implies that power is not
   concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a
   state in wartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The
   legislature usually must give consent before the start of an offensive
   military operation, although sometimes the executive can do this on its
   own while keeping the legislature informed. If the democracy is
   attacked, then no consent is usually required for defensive operations.
   The people may vote against a conscription army. Monarchies and
   dictatorships can in theory act immediately and forcefully.

   However, actual research shows that democracies are more likely to win
   wars than non-democracies. One explanation attributes this primarily to
   "the transparency of the polities, and the stability of their
   preferences, once determined, democracies are better able to cooperate
   with their partners in the conduct of wars". Other research attributes
   this to superior mobilisation of resources or selection of wars that
   the democratic states have a high chance of winning.

   Stam and Reiter (2002, p. 64-70) also note that the emphasis on
   individuality within democratic societies means that their soldiers
   fight with greater initiative and superior leadership. Officers in
   dictatorships are often selected for political loyalty rather than
   ability. They may be exclusively selected from a small class or
   religious/ethnic group that support the regime. Also this may also
   exclude many able officers. The leaders in nondemocracies may respond
   violently to any perceived criticisms or disobedience. This may make
   the soldiers and officers afraid to raise any objections or do anything
   without explicit authorisation. The lack of initiative may be
   particularly detrimental in modern warfare. Enemy soldiers may more
   easily surrender to democracies since they can expect comparatively
   good treatment. Nazi Germany killed almost 2/3 of the captured Soviet
   soldiers. 38% of the American soldiers captured by North Korea in the
   Korean War were killed.

Better information on and corrections of problems

   A democratic system may provide better information for policy
   decisions. Undesirable information may more easily be ignored in
   dictatorships, even if this undesirable or contrarian information
   provides early warning of problems. The democratic system also provides
   a way to replace inefficient leaders and policies. Thus, problems may
   continue longer and crises of all kinds may be more common in
   autocracies.

Corruption

   Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are
   extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption:
   democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of
   the press are all associated with lower corruption. Freedom of
   information legislation is important for accountability and
   transparency. The Indian Right to Information Act "has already
   engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the
   lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power
   equations completely."

Terrorism

   Several studies have concluded that terrorism is most common in nations
   with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least
   terrorism are the most democratic nations . However, critics of Western
   democracy such as Noam Chomsky have argued that, according to official
   definitions of terrorism, liberal democractic states have committed
   many acts of terrorism against other nations.

Economic growth and financial crises

   Statistically, more democracy correlates with a higher gross domestic
   product ( GDP) per capita.

   However, there is disagreement regarding how much credit the democratic
   system can take for this. One observation is that democracy became
   widespread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of
   capitalism. On the other hand, the industrial revolution started in
   England which was one of the most democratic nations for its time.

   Several statistical studies support the theory that more capitalism,
   measured for example with one the several Indices of Economic Freedom
   which has been used in hundreds of studies by independent researchers,
   increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general
   prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratization. This is a
   statistical tendency, and there are individual exceptions like India,
   which is democratic but arguably not prosperous, or Brunei, which has a
   high GDP but has never been democratic. There are also other studies
   suggesting that more democracy increases economic freedom although a
   few find no or even a small negative effect. One objection might be
   that nations like Sweden and Canada today score just below nations like
   Chile and Estonia on economic freedom but that Sweden and Canada today
   have a higher GDP per capita. However, this is a misunderstanding, the
   studies indicate effect on economic growth and thus that future GDP per
   capita will be higher with higher economic freedom. It should also be
   noted that according to the index Sweden and Canada are among the
   world's most capitalist nations, due to factors such as strong rule of
   law, strong property rights, and few restrictions against free trade.
   Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom and other
   methods used does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some
   other definition.

   Some argue that economic growth due to its empowerment of citizens,
   will ensure a transition to democracy in countries such as China.
   However, other dispute this. Even if economic growth has caused
   democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Dictators
   may now have learned how to have economic growth without this causing
   more political freedom.

   A high degree of oil or mineral exports is strongly associated with
   nondemocratic rule. This effect applies worldwide and not only to the
   Middle East. Dictators who have this form of wealth can spend more on
   their security apparatus and provide benefits which lessen public
   unrest. Also, such wealth is not followed by the social and cultural
   changes that may transform societies with ordinary economic growth.

   A recent meta-analysis finds that democracy has no direct effect on
   economic growth. However, it has a strong and significant indirect
   effects which contribute to growth. Democracy is associated with higher
   human capital accumulation, lower inflation, lower political
   instability, and higher economic freedom. There is also some evidence
   that it is associated with larger governments and more restrictions on
   international trade.

   If leaving out East Asia, then during the last forty-five years poor
   democracies have grown their economies 50% more rapidly than
   nondemocracies. Poor democracies such as the Baltic countries,
   Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly than
   nondemocracies such as Angola, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe.

   Of the eighty worst financial catastrophes during the last four
   decades, only five were in democracies. Similarly, poor democracies are
   half likely as nondemocracies to experience a 10 percent decline in GDP
   per capita over the course of a single year.

Famines and refugees

   A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has noted that no functioning
   democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine. This includes
   democracies that have not been very prosperous historically, like
   India, which had its last great famine in 1943 and many other large
   scale famines before that in the late nineteenth century, all under
   British rule. However, some others ascribe the Bengal famine of 1943 to
   the effects of World War II. The government of India had been becoming
   progressively more democratic for years. Provincial government had been
   entirely so since the Government of India Act of 1935.

   Refugee crises almost always occur in nondemocracies. Looking at the
   volume of refugee flows for the last twenty years, the first
   eighty-seven cases occurred in autocracies.

Human development

   Democracy correlations with a higher score on the human development
   index and a lower score on the human poverty index.

   Poor democracies have better education, longer life expectancy, lower
   infant mortality, access to drinking water, and better health care than
   poor dictatorships. This is not due to higher levels of foreign
   assistance or spending a larger percentage of GDP on health and
   education. Instead, the available resources are managed better.

   Several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal
   mortality) has a stronger and more significant association with
   democracy than they have with GDP per capita, size of the public
   sector, or income inequality.

   In the post-Communist nations, after an initial decline, those most
   democratic have achieved the greatest gains in life expectancy.

Democratic peace theory

   Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and
   statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace
   theory. The original finding was that liberal democracies have never
   made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory
   and finds that democracies have few Militarized Interstate Disputes
   causing less than 1000 battle deaths with one another, that those MIDs
   that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths, and that
   democracies have few civil wars.

   There are various criticisms of the theory, including specific historic
   wars and that correlation is not causation.

Mass murder by government

   Research shows that the more democratic nations have much less democide
   or murder by government. Similarly, they have less genocide and
   politicide.

Freedoms and rights

   The freedoms and rights of the citizens in liberal democracies are
   usually seen as beneficial.

Happiness

   More democracy is associated with a higher average self-reported
   happiness in a nation.
   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
