CHAPTER 2 (V.1b)

 It is time to put the word “democracy” under the microscope. If we are to discuss “democracy,” it would be well to know what we mean by “democracy.” Dictionary.com provide an excellent definition. Democracy is: “Government by the people; a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system [2].” The ancient Greek word for “democracy” is dēmokratia. Dēmokratia stems from two root words, demos and kratia. Demos referred to the common people or the people as a collective entity, while kratia signified rule, government, or the power to rule.

It is usually said that there are three forms of democracy: Representative, Direct and Participatory. Representative democracy is where citizens elect individuals to represent them and make decisions on their behalf. Direct democracy, on the other hand, is when citizens vote on policy proposals themselves rather than electing representatives to do that in their name. Participatory democracy is a halfway house between representative and direct democracy. It is where citizens have the power to decide directly on policy, and then politicians implement those decisions. Expressions of participatory democracy include referenda and citizens’ initiatives.

Under the umbrella term "representative democracy," there are several different types of democracy. The two main types are liberal democracy and social democracy.

Liberal democracies emphasise the ability to restrain government and put the rights and freedoms of the individual at the very heart of politics. Hence, the right of US citizens to bear arms. Liberal democracies are based on the Liberal political ideology. Essentially, Liberalism advocates individualism and sees the State as a necessary evil. It regards capitalism and the free market as the best possible economic basis for The Proper Society. Ideally, wealth, property and services should all be privately owned. Liberalism emphasises a small state, believing the individual, as much as possible, should pay for goods and services that a social democracy might see as a collective responsibility. I.e., healthcare. The USA is perhaps the country closest to the Liberal ideal.

Social democracies employ certain socialist practices while operating within a capitalist framework. They are characterised by welfare states, state-run or controlled healthcare systems, and significant portions of their economies being under state control—for instance, electricity, the rail network and water companies. To varying degrees, social democracies use taxation and a welfare state to mitigate social inequalities, such as the wealth gap between the rich and the poor, as well as a lack of equal opportunities for certain social groups. While liberals view the state as a potential threat, social democrats regard it as a force for good.

Two other subtypes of representative democracy are worth noting: Parliamentary Democracy and Presidential Democracy.

In a parliamentary democracy, the government is drawn from the party or coalition which commands a parliamentary majority. The executive is responsible to the legislature and can be dismissed if it loses its parliamentary majority. The Head of State differs from the head of government. For example, the UK is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch serves as the Head of State, while the Prime Minister acts as the Head of Government. Often, in parliamentary democracies, the Head of State is a ceremonial figurehead.

By contrast, in a presidential democracy, the Head of State and the Head of Government are typically the same person, referred to as “The President.” The executive branch of the state is elected separately from the legislature, rather than being drawn from it. Unlike in a parliamentary democracy, the President is not accountable to the legislature and cannot be dismissed by it, except in extraordinary circumstances, if found guilty of a serious crime, for example.

It is important to understand the defining characteristics of a democracy. These are the fundamental beliefs, political institutions and practices that underpin democracy.

A Constitution

A constitution is the set of laws and regulations that govern a nation-state. It outlines the functions and obligations of the legislature, executive and judiciary. The rights and obligations of citizens are also outlined in the Constitution. It is essential to remember that a constitution is not always presented in a single document. Britain has an uncodified constitution. A set of laws, regulations and customs exists, but they are scattered amongst the body of British law.

The Rule of Law

This is the principle that says the people are equal before the law, and that the government and the State are themselves accountable in law.

Legitimacy

Legitimacy is the acceptance by the populace of the right of its leaders to govern. Voting is generally used to convey legitimacy. It does not matter who citizens vote for. The fact that they have engaged in the democratic process conveys legitimacy. Similarly, if an election is considered free and fair, then that conveys legitimacy to the winners of that election.

Popular Political Participation

Widespread participation is a fundamental part of democracy, not just a characteristic of it. Either directly or through elections, people must take an active role in the political process. If they do not, the legitimacy of democracy itself can be called into question. For example, turnout in US presidential elections typically ranges between 50% and 60%, raising persistent questions about the legitimacy of the entire US political system.

Periodic Elections

Regular elections are a crucial part of democracy. A state is not democratic if just one person rules it for an indefinite period. Putin, for example. In a democracy, the people are sovereign and must be allowed to select and replace their leaders on a scheduled basis.

Free and Fair Elections

According to the political scientist, Robert Dahl, a free and fair election is one in which "coercion is comparatively uncommon. [3]” It involves a fair count of persons eligible to vote, a lack of electoral fraud or voter suppression, and the acceptance of the election’s results by all parties.

Separation of Powers

To avoid authoritarianism, some democracies divide the power and authority of the state's core institutions. It is a characteristic of most presidential democracies that the executive, legislature and judiciary have different functions and powers. The legislature makes law. It debates proposals for laws, examines amendments that should be made, and passes or rejects laws.  Legislatures also conduct scrutiny work. This involves examining and challenging the executive's work through debates, questions, and/or committees. The executive is responsible for creating policy and putting proposals for law to the legislature. It is also responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of laws written by the legislature. The executive routinely makes vital decisions. It also conducts diplomacy with other nations and has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which the legislature later ratifies. The judiciary decides on the constitutionality of laws and resolves disputes about laws. Cases that make it to the Supreme Court are usually those with the most significant public importance.

Checks and Balances

Following logically from a separation of powers is the principle of checks and balances. In essence, the core institutions of the State, while they are notionally autonomous, nonetheless have the power and authority to prevent each other from acting. For example, in the US, the President can veto acts passed in Congress that he (or perhaps one day she) finds unconstitutional, unjust, or unwise. Similarly, Congress can override a presidential decree. In this way, the executive, legislature, and judiciary are encouraged to cooperate and compromise to find a path forward that is acceptable to all three core branches of the State.

Political Parties

A plurality of political parties is essential in a democracy, thus ensuring the electorate has a variety of voting options. A one-party state such as China cannot be said to be democratic because the electorate has no genuine choice.

Majority Rule

Majority rule means a decision is made if it receives more than half the votes. Everybody agrees beforehand – win or lose – that the outcome is to be respected and the majority opinion should prevail. Some critics argue that majority rule can lead to the "tyranny of the majority [4]," where the majority might impose decisions that negatively impact a minority. To prevent this, democracies typically establish constitutional protections, often in the form of a Bill of Rights, to safeguard the rights of minorities.

Political Equality

Political equality refers to the principle that every citizen in a democracy has an equal right to vote and be represented in political institutions, regardless of their social or demographic characteristics. It emphasises the need for fair and unbiased representation of diverse social groups and is expressed in principles such as one-person, one-vote, equality before the law, and equal rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, among others.

Although abbreviated and in some instances simplified, everything written describing “democracy” thus far is a fair sample of what appears in introductory political textbooks or what can be found on the internet. And it is revealing! In the consciousness of most political scientists and philosophers, not to mention the public, democracy is synonymous with elections. Indeed, democracy is elections! That assumption is even embedded in definitions of “democracy.” We might say that the belief that democracy is elections is hegemonic. “Hegemonic” is a shorthand word for saying a particular set of ideas is utterly dominant. And by dominant, so commonsensical and intuitively right that alternatives, even if they can be imagined at all, are reflexively viewed with scorn and derision.

Even so, an alternative to electoral democracy does exist: non-electoral democracy. Thus, it needs to be defined before we can proceed further.

Non-electoral democracy is characterised primarily by two things: first, its opposition to elections, which it regards as anti-democratic; and second, its solution to the issue of elections: the random selection of political representatives. Beyond that, it branches into two distinct types: Real Democracy and Demarchy.

REAL DEMOCRACY

A necessary neologism, Real Democracy draws inspiration from the democracy of ancient Athens. As we saw in the previous chapter, Real Democracy’s philosophical foundations are identical to those of electoral democracy. It too upholds constitutionalism, majority rule, and political equality, etc. We need only change a few phrases, such as “free and fair elections” to “the free and fair random selection of political representatives,” to articulate Real Democracy’s fundamental principles.

With one profound exception. Although never explicitly stated, because it is taken for granted, electoral democracy is inexorably intertwined with capitalism, which does not merely fund politics; it actively structures electoral democracies by incentivising political parties and governments to advance policies that align with business interests. The Conservative Party does not call itself “the party of business” for nothing. And the Labour Party, which has become increasingly right-wing in recent years, now voices similar sentiments. At the 2023 party conference, Keir Starmer stated in front of business leaders who were attending: “If we do come into government, you will be coming into government with us [5].”

Real Democracy objects in the strongest possible terms to these arrangements because they suborn democracy, advancing the interests of a wealthy elite at the expense of the public good. Consequently, Real Capitalism is socialist.

DEMARCHY

Derived from the ancient Greek words for “people” and “ruler,” “demarchy” is also a neologism. The term was popularised by the Australian political philosopher John Burnheim in his seminal work, Is Democracy Possible (1985) [6].

In his book, Burnheim outlined an alternative to electoral democracy, which he called “demarchy.” Burnheim advocated for a decentralised and stateless society in which largely autonomous citizens’ committees (“functional groups”) chosen by lot from volunteers ran local or municipal services, including parks and libraries, rubbish collection, social services, infrastructure, and education. The decisions and actions of these citizen councils were to be coordinated by “second-order” groups, drawn from these functional groups, again by sortition. Burnheim called this organisational structure “a community of organisations [7].”

Burnheim’s vision was not anarchistic, as some have suggested. He understood that if consensus and negotiation failed, his second-order groups would, as a last resort, have to impose their decisions on the functional groups with which they worked. They would be imbued with authority. Such a position is anathema to anarchists, who repudiate political authority in all its forms. That said, like anarchist thinkers such as Proudhon and Bakunin, Burnheim did not see a need for any central authority or a permanent bureaucracy. In this sense, then, his stateless concept of demarchy is quasi-anarchistic, having some of the features of anarchy but not others.

There remains one last thing to do when it comes to defining and describing non-electoral democracy: briefly examine Athenian democracy, its history, how it functioned and the specific reasons why the Athenians rejected elections in favour of sortition. Doing so will provide valuable insights later when we assess whether contemporary electoral democracy is as intrinsically oligarchical as the ancient Athenians believed.

Spoiler alert: it is.

Athens is often referred to as the "cradle of democracy" because it was the first city-state to develop and implement a democratic system of government, where citizens actively participated in decision-making and held power. This is not to say that Athens was a democracy in the sense that the term is usually understood today. It was not. Women did not have the vote, and the majority of Athenians owned at least one enslaved person [8]. Additionally, Athenian democracy is often considered an experiment. It lasted roughly 180 years [9]

Athenian democracy consisted of three key institutions. The Boule, a council of representatives from the ten Athenian tribes, the Ekklesia, a popular assembly that wrote laws and decided foreign policy, and the Dikasteria, the popular courts. No direct parallels are possible, but loosely speaking, the Boule might be thought of as the Executive, the Ekklesia as the Legislature and the Dikasteria as the Judiciary.

The Boule was a body of five hundred men, fifty from each of the Athenian tribes. Members served for one year and were chosen randomly from a pool of eligible volunteers. Importantly, as an anti-elitist measure, members of the Boule were compensated for their service. This ensured that ordinary working people, not just wealthy citizens, could afford to stand for political office. The Boule met daily and conducted most of the routine work of governance. The Boule’s primary function was to decide what matters would come before the Ekklesia. In this way, it exercised considerable power, as it not only administered the smooth running of Athens, it also shaped the political agenda [10].

The Ekklesia was a popular assembly and a sovereign body. Any male citizen could take part in the Ekklesia. Roughly speaking, thirty thousand men over the age of eighteen qualified. The Ekklesia convened about forty times a year on the Pnyx Hill in a dedicated space that could accommodate around six thousand citizens. The turnout was typically around 5,000. Many Athenian men were enlisted in the army or the navy. Others were working. Still others had no interest in politics or lived outside Athens’ city walls, elsewhere on the Attica peninsula. This made attendance awkward. Any citizen could speak before the assembly, and the vote was by a show of hands. Nine presidents selected by lot and holding the office only once organised the proceedings and assessed the voting [11].

Issues discussed in the Ekklesia included military spending and financial appointments, organising and maintaining food supplies, initiating legislation and political trials, deciding to send envoys, deciding whether to sign treaties, voting to raise or spend funds, and debating military matters. The assembly could also vote to ostracise a citizen (banish them). Notably, this included citizens who had become powerful and ambitious enough to threaten the Athenian State. An essential element in debates was freedom of speech, which became arguably a citizen's most valued right. After suitable discussion, temporary or specific decrees were adopted, and laws were defined. The assembly also ensured that decisions were enforced and that officials were carrying out their duties correctly [12].

The Dikasteria was composed of volunteer jurors and a body of chief magistrates chosen annually. All jurors had to be over thirty, swear an oath and, like members of the Boule, undergo an examination to ensure citizenship and good character. Like selection to the Boule, selection to the Dikasteria was by sortition. Specifically, using an ingenious randomisation machine called a Kleroterion [13].

Democracy did not come to Athens overnight. There was no revolution; instead, a hereditary aristocracy gradually evolved into a democracy over several centuries. This process was driven by internal class struggles, legal reforms and often dramatic shifts in political power.

The most significant changes to Athens’ political system occurred in 508/507 BCE with Cleisthenes’ reforms. Before that, Athens experienced a period of tyranny under Pisistratus and later his sons, Hipparchus and Hippias. Pisistratus initially seized power through populist support. However, after his death, his sons' rule became increasingly oppressive, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. The assassination of Hipparchus in 514 BCE and the subsequent expulsion of Hippias in 510 BCE ended the tyranny, creating a power vacuum and an opportunity for political restructuring [14].

In 508/507 BCE, Cleisthenes, an aristocrat and political reformer, capitalised on this period of post-tyranny political uncertainty. He implemented groundbreaking democratic reforms, dismantling the traditional kinship-based tribes and establishing ten new tribes based on geographical districts. This diluted aristocratic influence, fostering a sense of unity among citizens. Cleisthenes also introduced the Boule and the power of ostracism [15].

In the mid-5^th century BCE, more democratic advancements were made under Ephialtes and Pericles. Ephialtes further curtailed the powers of the aristocratic Council of the Areopagus by transferring authority to the Ekklesia, the Boule, and the popular courts. This further enhanced the role of ordinary citizens in governance. In his turn, Pericles expanded democratic participation by introducing pay for public officials. He also promoted the arts and education, leading to Athens' Golden Age [16].

Cleisthenes’ decision to base Athens’ democracy on sortition rather than elections was a deliberate strategy. His purpose was to dismantle the deeply entrenched aristocratic power structures at the heart of Athenian politics and pass them to the people. This approach was rooted in a deeply and passionately felt principle: isonomia – political equality [17]. Athens’ turbulent political history, characterised as it was by coups and tyrannies, gave its citizens a strong desire for a controlling hand in the life of their city, and an iron-clad commitment to both popular political participation and anti-elitism. They had had enough of tyrants, aristocrats and elites. They wanted a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Sortition was central to this. It was seen as a safeguard against the oligarchic tendencies inherent in elections [18]. Athenians believed it a self-evident truth that elections favoured elites, especially Athens’ wealthy aristocratic families who could leverage their wealth, lineage, and social networks to secure (buy) political power.

I do not know this for a fact. Nowhere is it written. But reading between the lines, I get the impression that the average Athenian citizen thought it not just axiomatic that elections perpetuated oligarchic control, but blindingly bloody obvious. Election campaigns, then as now, are expensive propositions. Only wealthy Athenians would have been able to stand for election.

As Aristotle observed using more temperate language, “It is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is considered oligarchic.” (Politics (Book IV, 1294b) [19]

There were additional motives for choosing sortition over elections. Elections can be susceptible to corruption, vote-buying, and the undue influence of powerful individuals or factions. Sortition, by contrast, reduces these risks by eliminating the competitive aspect of elections. Since officials are chosen randomly, there is less incentive for corrupt practices aimed at securing office, leading to a more impartial and equitable political process. Sortition also ensured a diverse representation of the citizenry and prevented the concentration of power in the hands of the aristocracy. Moreover, mechanisms such as term limits, officials being subject to audits, and other accountability procedures helped to maintain transparency and prevent abuses of power [20].

Interestingly, some historians claim the Athenian preference for sortition aligned with beliefs about fate and divine will. Random selection was perceived as allowing the gods to guide political appointments, thereby legitimising the process and reinforcing the notion that governance should be a shared civic duty rather than a pursuit of personal ambition [21].