democracy essay with outlines

25,000+ 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!

Can you answer these questions in under 5 minutes? Take the Ultimate GK Quiz to find out!

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?

Must Explore: Human Rights Courses for Students 

Must Explore: NCERT Notes on Separation of Powers in a Democracy

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, 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

25,000+ 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.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Forms of Government — Democracy

Essays on Democracy

Democracy essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: the evolution of democracy: historical origins, principles, and contemporary challenges.

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the historical roots of democracy, its foundational principles, and the contemporary challenges it faces in the context of modern societies.

• Introduction
• Origins of Democracy: Ancient Greece and Beyond
• Democratic Principles: Rule of Law, Freedom, and Participation
• Democracy in Practice: Case Studies of Democratic Nations
• Challenges to Democracy: Populism, Authoritarianism, and Erosion of Institutions
• Electoral Systems: Voting Methods and Representation
• Media and Democracy: The Role of Information and Misinformation
• Conclusion: Safeguarding Democracy in the 21st Century

Essay Title 2: The Democratic Experiment: Comparative Analysis of Democratic Systems Worldwide

Thesis Statement: This essay conducts a comparative analysis of democratic systems in different countries, highlighting variations in practices, governance structures, and outcomes.

• Democratic Models: Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems
• Democratic Variations: Federalism and Unitarism
• Elections and Representation: Proportional vs. First-Past-the-Post Systems
• Citizen Participation: Direct Democracy and Referendums
• Case Studies: Analyzing Democracies in Europe, Asia, and the Americas
• Democratic Challenges: Corruption, Voter Suppression, and Civic Engagement
• Conclusion: Lessons Learned from Global Democratic Experiences

Essay Title 3: The Digital Age and Democracy: Technology, Social Media, and the Shaping of Political Discourse

Thesis Statement: This essay examines the influence of technology and social media on democratic processes, including their impact on political communication, public opinion, and election outcomes.

• The Digital Revolution: Internet Access and Political Engagement
• Social Media Platforms: Their Role in Disseminating Information and Disinformation
• Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The Polarization of Political Discourse
• Online Activism: Grassroots Movements and Their Impact
• Regulation and Ethics: Balancing Free Speech and Accountability Online
• Case Studies: Examining Elections and Political Campaigns in the Digital Age
• Conclusion: Navigating the Intersection of Technology and Democracy

Shaping Law Enforcement: Democracy's Public Role

Definition of democracy to me, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Importance of We The People

The concepts and fundamental principles of democracy, what is functioning democracy and its specification, the concept of democracy and non-democracy, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Importance of Participation for Democracy

The challenges to democracy in "twelve angry men", strengthening democracy through ensuring the rights of the marginalised, role of civil society in democracy today, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Government’s Right to Rule and Citizens’ Duty to Obey in a Democracy

The sacrifices of creating democracy, digital democracy and internet freedom, effectively composed parliament through proper electoral system, discussion on whether prisoners should have right to vote, comparing and contrasting analysis of the maximalist and minimalist democracy, democracy: the influence of interest groups on political decisions through lobbying, the possibility of countries in the middle east to ever become democratic, the present situation with democracy in bangladesh, the controversial question of the use of civil disobedience as a method of protest in a democracy, the "bull moose" campaign of 1912, the american constitution as not the only possible basis for the democratic system, successful consolidation of democracy in nigeria & india, evaluation of plato's view of democracy, nigeria’s democracy in the era of fake news, political significance of social media, research of how loss of reputation has played a major role in the decline of indian national congress, the age of jacksonian democracy in america, questioning democracy in thoreau's and melville's works, how pluralist democracy are affected by pressure groups, relevant topics.

• Abraham Lincoln
• Electoral College
• Andrew Jackson
• Compulsory Voting
• John F. Kennedy

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

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

Democracy in Pakistan Essay with Quotations

by Pakiology | Apr 24, 2024 | Essay | 1 comment

Explore the evolution, challenges, and progress of democracy in Pakistan in this in-depth essay . Gain insights into the nation’s rich history, the influence of the military, the pervasive issue of corruption, and the role of civil society in shaping Pakistan’s democratic landscape.

Title: The Evolution of Democracy in Pakistan: Challenges, Progress, and Prospects for the Future

Introduction.

Pakistan, a country characterized by its rich and diverse history, has embarked on a tumultuous journey in pursuit of democracy. Overcoming numerous obstacles, its citizens have tenaciously defended their democratic rights and worked diligently to forge a more equitable society. In this comprehensive essay, we delve into the current state of democracy in Pakistan, recognizing its historical context, addressing the persistent challenges it confronts, highlighting the progress made, and considering the prospects for the future.

The Historical Landscape

Democracy, at its core, is a system of government grounded in the principle of representation, allowing citizens to actively participate in decision-making processes that impact their lives. Regrettably, the implementation of democracy in Pakistan has been marred by a series of military coups and periods of martial law, intermittently disrupting its democratic trajectory. Despite these adversities, Pakistan now operates as a federal parliamentary republic with a president and prime minister at the helm.

The Military’s Influence: A Persistent Challenge

A major impediment to democracy in Pakistan has been the enduring influence of the military on the political landscape. Pakistan’s history is replete with instances of military interventions in civilian governance, including several coups and martial law declarations. This persistent interference not only undermines democratic principles but also erodes public trust in the democratic system. Additionally, intelligence agencies have faced accusations of wielding substantial influence in the political sphere, further eroding democratic institutions and processes.

Corruption as a Hindrance: A Deep-Seated Issue

Another significant challenge is the pervasiveness of corruption within Pakistan. Corruption has become deeply ingrained in the country, with numerous politicians and government officials implicated in embezzlement and bribery. This deeply rooted issue corrodes the legitimacy of the democratic process and erodes public trust in the government. The adverse effects of corruption are most acutely felt by marginalized communities, who suffer from a lack of essential public services and resources.

The Resilience of Democratic Aspirations: Signs of Progress

Despite these formidable challenges, the citizens of Pakistan persistently strive to defend their democratic rights and fortify democratic institutions. In recent years, the country has seen a notable rise in the number of civil society organizations dedicated to advocating for transparency, accountability, and the promotion of awareness regarding democratic rights and freedoms. Additionally, the media has played a pivotal role in promoting democratic values and holding the government accountable for its actions.

The Role of Civil Society

Civil society organizations have emerged as vital agents of change in Pakistan’s democratic landscape. They tirelessly work to bridge the gap between the government and the governed, acting as watchdogs for accountability and transparency. Through advocacy, awareness campaigns, and public mobilization, these organizations have managed to shine a spotlight on the pressing issues of democracy and governance in Pakistan. Their activities range from monitoring elections to exposing corruption and advocating for the rule of law.

Media as the Fourth Estate

The media in Pakistan has undergone a transformational journey, evolving into a vibrant fourth estate that plays a crucial role in promoting democratic values. While media outlets often grapple with challenges such as censorship and intimidation, they continue to serve as a check on government power and a forum for diverse voices. Investigative journalism has uncovered corruption scandals, challenged authoritarianism, and provided a platform for citizens to engage in political discourse.

In conclusion, democracy in Pakistan remains an imperfect yet indispensable system, despite the numerous setbacks and challenges it has encountered. The people of Pakistan ardently safeguard their democratic rights, and the fortification of democratic institutions and processes is pivotal for the nation’s future. The enduring challenges posed by military influence, corruption, and public mistrust can only be surmounted through persistent efforts and sustained citizen engagement in the democratic process. As Pakistan continues its journey towards a more robust democracy, the world watches with hope and anticipation, recognizing the nation’s potential to overcome its challenges and achieve democratic excellence. The path may be long and arduous, but the resilience and determination of Pakistan’s people offer a promising outlook for the future of democracy in the country.

Quotes Related to Democracy

Here are a few quotes related to democracy and its challenges in Pakistan:

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” – Milton Friedman, Economist

“The greatest threat to democracy is not the enemies from without, but the enemies from within.” – Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

“I believe that the real solution to the problems facing Pakistan lies in true democracy and the rule of law.” – Imran Khan, Former Prime Minister of Pakistan

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” – John Philpot Curran, Irish Orator and Statesman.

Ask Your Questions

You might like, problems of karachi essay | 200 & 500 words.

Explore the multifaceted challenges faced by Karachi in this comprehensive essay. From overpopulation to traffic...

A True Muslim Essay With Quotations 2023

A true Muslim essay is about the qualities of a true Muslim and how they embody the teachings of Islam in their daily...

An Essay on My Mother: A Tribute to Mothers

Mothers are the backbone of a family and a crucial influence in the lives of their children. From an early age,...

Health is Wealth Essay For Students

In this essay, we explore why health is wealth and why it is crucial to prioritize our physical and mental well-being...

Sir you have used a lot of bitter words in this essay which are enough to awake a nation.😭😭😭😭 But It’s reality I think inshallah one day we will achieve that original democracy which will prevent our basic rights and our motherland…..

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

Submit Comment

• class-9-notes
• Friendship quotes
• Scholarships
• Science News
• Study Abroad
• Study in Australia
• SZABMU MDCAT
• UHS Past MCQs
• Universities

Essay on “Democracy in Pakistan” for CSS, and PMS

• January 24, 2022
• Essay for CSS PMS and Judiciary Exam

This is an Essay on “Democracy in Pakistan” for CSS, PMS, and Judiciary Examinations. Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation, or to choose governing officials to do so.” Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through freely elected representatives. As Democracy is a very popular topic so, here is a complete Essay on “Democracy in Pakistan” for CSS, PMS, and judiciary examinations.

What is democracy? Essentials of democracy Democracy in Pakistan

A brief history

• The early period from 1947-58
• Period of General Ayub and General Zia
• Political turmoil and General Pervaiz Musharraf

Causes of failure of democracy in Pakistan

• Delayed Framing of the Constitution
• Leadership Crisis
• Lack of education
• No independence of the judiciary
• Weak political parties and their infighting
• Delayed elections and rigging
• Corruption and nepotism
• Quasi-Federalism and Conflict between Eastern and Western Wings
• Terrorism and extremism

Pakistani Democracy Vs. Western Democracy

Suggestions

• Effective accountability of the politicians
•  Reforming judiciary
• Abolish feudalism
• Eliminate corruption
• Two parties system on the pattern of the USA, UK
• Amendment in the constitution
• Fair and free election
• Increase the education budget to educate people
• Uninterrupted democratic process
• Strengthening the institutions

Essay on “Democracy in Pakistan” for CSS, PMS, and Judiciary Examinations

“You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice, and the equality of manhood in your own native soil.” -Muhammad Ali Jinnah,

To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy. – Bertrand Russell

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development, and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic, and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. While there is no specific, universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’, equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes.

For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.

Many people use the term “democracy” as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the Jaw; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights ; and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained).

In other cases, “democracy” is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term “democracy” is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups as well.

Democracy in Pakistan

Democracy in its true spirit has never been allowed to take root in Pakistan. Since its independence in 1947, a military-bureaucratic establishment has always governed the country. Army generals usurp power at their own convenience and quit only when they are forced to quit by mass political movements or by sudden unexpected death. When forced by external or internal pressures, democracy is given a chance but in reality, a group of army generals keeps controlling the decision-making.

This direct or indirect military influence is the greatest impediment to the evolution of a stable governing system in Pakistan. Besides, the army is not solely responsible for this mass but it is our inefficient politicians who provide an opportunity for to army to take over.

A brief history of Democracy in Pakistan

Recalling the last 62 years of Pakistan, democracy is found only as an interval before the next military general comes to the scene. The future of democracy was doomed from the start when Liaquat Ali Khan, the first elected Prime Minister, was shot at a public gathering. Nobody knows to this day who did it and why. From now on, the balance of power was to shift in the favor of the military. A comparison tells us how this shift came up. From 1951-57 India had one Prime Minister and several army chiefs while during the same period Pakistan had one army chief and several Prime ministers.

The same army chief, the Sandhurst-trained general, Ayub Khan was to announce the first martial law in the country in 1958 and then a series of military rules were to follow.

General Ayub Khan could not withstand a popular national movement against him and transferred power to General Yahya Khan in March 1969. Under him, Pakistan lost its half which is now Bangladesh. Power was then transferred to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as the first civilian martial law administrator. Bhutto pursued an independent policy, which was against what generals and the US wanted, and he had to pay with his life.

Charged for compliance in murder, Bhutto was hanged by the next martial law administrator, General Zia ul Haq. The hanging of an elected Prime Minister was shocking news to the world and Pakistan was to have the effects years later. The general died in a mysterious plane crash.

Then came a ten years gap of experimentation with democracy and every two years each elected government was ousted by the special discretionary powers of the president . An end to this ten-year spell came with a new general coming to power ousting the incumbent elected government of Mian Nawaz Sharif. This time the Prime Minister was charged with conspiring against the state and was ousted from the country.

The immediate and foremost requirement of the Constituent Assembly was to frame a democratic constitution for the country. The constitution had to lay down the form of government, and the role of the judiciary, military, and bureaucracy. It had to decide the basic issues about provincial autonomy, religion and the state, the joint or separate electorate, representation of minorities and women in assemblies, fundamental rights, and civil liberties.

The debate over the representation of eastern and western wings of the country and religion versus secularism were the two main hindrances in the way of framing the constitution. As against India, which was able to frame the constitution of the country within two years of independence in 1949, Pakistan took nine years to finalize the constitution in 1956, which did not work for more than two years and was abrogated.

The second constitution was framed by a military ruler General Ayub in 1962 which could last as long as he was in power. Finally, it was after the separation of East Pakistan and a lapse of more than a quarter of a century (1947-1973) that the elected representatives of the people under the leadership of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto framed a consensus constitution envisaging a  federal, democratic structure for the country and a parliamentary form of government.

This constitution has survived in spite of the breakdown of democracy twice in 1978 and 1999 and hopefully has come to stay. But the delay in framing the constitution harmed the growth of political democracy, as it allowed the authoritarian rule of the Governor-General to continue for seven long years (1947-56), which set this inglorious tradition in the country.

The second obstacle in the way of democracy is the culture of feudalism. Democracy cannot develop in the suffocating atmosphere of feudalism. The history of feudalism in the subcontinent is not very old. It owes its origin to the war of independence in 1857 when different people were awarded large swathes of land by the British government because of their treacherous cooperation with the latter. Those feudal families joined Muslim League when they saw that Pakistan was going to be a reality and inherited power after the death of the founding father. Feudalism has now become a severe migraine for the nation. Democracy and feudalism are incompatible.

Change of faces at the wheel has not served any purpose. Even these feudal lords occupy more than 70 % of our land leaving the people to lead a miserable life. They are senators, ministers, MPAs, MNAs, and also the owners of major industries in Pakistan. There is a crying need to bring some structural changes in order to strengthen the political system. Industrialization has also played a significant role in the strengthening of democracy across the world. Great Britain is considered the mother of democracies on this planet.

Some analysts are of the view that democracy has its origin in the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus, etc. But even after these developments very mighty rulers have ruled Great Britain. In fact, the invention of the steam engine led to the industrial revolution which eradicated the roots of feudalism and the evil of absolute monarchy. All this resulted in the development of democracy. In Pakistan, there is everything from adult franchises to the separation of powers between the three organs of government but no plan for that kind of industrial revolution.

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the father of the nation and the first Governor-General, died just one year after the establishment of Pakistan on September 11, 1948, and his right-hand lieutenant Liaquat Ali Khan, who was the first Prime Minister, was assassinated on October 16, 1951. About the capability of other leaders of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), the party which had successfully piloted the movement for Pakistan, Jinnah had ruefully remarked that “he had false coins in his pocket”.

Consequently, several ministers appointed initially were not politicians and did not have a seat in the Assembly. Similarly, in 1954, there were several members of the Prime Minister’s cabinet without a seat in Parliament. “The cabinet and other high political appointments reflected a paucity of talent among the politicians.”

It is indeed a sad commentary on the elected members of the first Legislature and Constituent Assembly of Pakistan that they could not find a suitable head of state from among their own ranks. Most of them came from the civil bureaucracy or the military. The civil-military bureaucracy did not have a favorable opinion about the competence of political leaders and often took decisions without consulting them. This adversely affected their political training, development, and growth.

The inability to control the Anti-Ahmadiya Movement in Punjab in 1953 was blamed on inept political leadership. This religious movement was spearheaded by the religious Ahrar Party which had opposed the establishment of Pakistan and now wanted again to come into the limelight. They were supported by other religious parties, i.e., Jamaat-i-Islami, JamiatuiUlema-i-Pakistan, and JamiatulUlerna-i-Islam. The movement was exploited by politicians in their own political interests.

But the civil-military bureaucracy was against the religious parties dominating the power structure either in the provinces or the center. To rescue the city of Lahore where Ahmadis were in a “virtual state of siege” and their properties were being “burned or looted”, General Azam Khan, the Area Commander, was ordered by the Defense Secretary, to impose martial law in Lahore. It was met with the general approval of the people.

It was demonstrated that the civil-military bureaucracy “would not let politicians or religious ideologues lead the country to anarchy”. This also laid down the foundations of the supremacy of the military and orchestrated the initial rehearsal for the recurring imposition of Martial Law in the country and its acceptance by the people.

Lack of education has remained an important impediment to the democratization of countries. This is not just a problem for Pakistan but of the whole Third world. Laski, a famous political thinker said that education is the backbone of democracy. Democracy is a system of governance in which the people choose their representatives through elections. Their strength lies in the ballot box. If people are not vigilant and educated enough to make a better choice, democracy will not flourish in that country.

This is the main reason that even in the countries apparently practicing democracy but the majority of uneducated people are among the under-developed nations. Masses in Pakistan have not found ways of compelling their rulers to be mindful of their duty. Their failures in this regard result from insufficiency of experience and training in operating modem democratic politics. Democracy puts the highest premium on constitutionalism, which is possible only with the predominant majority of people. Pakistan’s democracy can neither improve nor become viable as long as the majority of the population remains uneducated.

Judiciary is one of the most important pillars of a state and in a country where the judiciary is not imparting justice , democracy cannot develop. During the Second World War, someone asked British Prime Minister Winston Churchill whether the British would win the war. The Prime Minister laughed and replied that if the British courts were dispensing justice, no one would trounce the United Kingdom. In Pakistan since 1954 judiciary has remained docile to the wishes of the executive. As Shelley says, “If the winter comes; can spring be far behind”.

In fact, since its birth, Pakistan has been governed by bureaucratic, military, and political elites. The bureaucratic elite generally became more assertive, steadily increasing their power at the expense of the political elite. Ayub’s term of office (1958-69) was the golden era for the bureaucracy, which exercised its powers, unbridled by any political interference. The weakness of political elites can be demonstrated by the fact that during seven years from 1951 to 1958, as many as seven Prime Ministers had been changed.

From 1988 to 1999, four democratically elected governments were replaced on charges of corruption, inefficiency, security risk, etc. The civil-military bureaucracy has dominated governance owing to the inherent weakness of the political parties and their incompetent leadership, resulting in the derailment of democracy thrice in the history of Pakistan, i.e., in 1958, 1977, and 1999.

Pakistan was not created as a theocracy but as a place where an economically marginalized minority could operate a democracy independently. It was to save the people from religious discrimination and domination by an overwhelming religious majority. Moreover, it emerged as a territorial state in the Muslim majority areas of the subcontinent. But the religious and secular groups soon started making conflicting demands while formulating the constitution of Pakistan.

The speech of Mr. Jinnah on August 11, 1947, addressed to the first legislative and constituent assembly of Pakistan, advocated political pluralism and declared that the “religion or caste or creed has nothing to do with the business of the State”. This has not adhered to the Objectives Resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly in 1949, which pacified the demands of Muslim religious parties and elements but was not supported by religious minorities.

The compromise solution attempted to balance the values and the spirit of Islam with the requirements of secularism. Due to a lack of competent and visionary political leadership , and the fact that Muslims constituted 98 percent of the population, the conservative religious leaders, partly due to their conviction and partly owing to their parochial interests, advocated and preached the establishment of a religiopolitical system based on Al-Quran and Sunnah.

They were skeptical of the politico-social development of modem times and western political institutions and forms of government. Their dogmatic theology clashed with the democratic culture envisioned by the founding fathers. Another adverse impact of the adoption of religion as a guiding principle in the constitution, was the promotion of religious sectarianism, especially between the two major sects inhabiting Pakistan, i.e., Sunnis and Shi’as. Some sections of these sects, instead of peaceful negotiations to overcome their differences, often resort to violence, which is against the spirit of both Islam and democracy. These rivalries fostered reliance on the security forces for the maintenance of law and order, which eroded the hold of democratic institutions in governance.

For any healthy constitutional and political system to function smoothly, strong and well-entrenched political parties are essential. Unfortunately, political parties in Pakistan have failed to develop into strong vehicles of national political will. The main responsibility for safeguarding democracy in a country falls on political parties. Pakistan, since its inception, was lacking well-organized and well-established political parties that could carry the representative system of governance forward.

The All-India Muslim League, which had piloted the movement of Pakistan from 1940 to 47, was not a well-organized political party, but it was primarily a movement. Leading a movement and organizing a political party are two different things. Most of its leaders belonged to areas that became part of the Indian Union and their majority did not come to Pakistan. Those who were in Pakistan, barring a few exceptions, belonged to feudal and landowning classes that in their nature were in conflict with the democratic dispensation. In fact “the leadership of the Pakistan movement had few roots in the land that became Pakistan.”

Their incompetence and constant wrangling for power in the initial nine years (1947-1956) were also responsible for the delay in constitution-making. Instead of cooperation and mutual accommodation, there was ceaseless infighting. For instance, as early as 1953, a clash between the leadership of Punjab and the central government led to intense communal riots and the imposition of Martial Law in Lahore, the provincial capital. Even as late as the decade 1988-99 of civil supremacy, the fight between the PML and the PPP led to the repeated dissolution of national and provincial assemblies and the dismissal of prime ministers and their cabinets. Finally, it ended with the military takeover in 1999.

The representative character of the civilian parliamentary government during the first decade of Pakistan’s existence was eroded because the country was governed under the Government of India Act of 1935. The purpose of the Act was “to make the appointed governor-general exert dominance over the elected prime minister.” The Act introduced a representative and centralized system of bureaucratic governance, which was an imperative requirement of the colonial government but not of democratic governance. The first general elections in the country should have been held in 1951, i.e., five years after the previous elections in 1946, but this could not happen till 1970.

The reasons for the delay were that the ruling elite, i.e., civil bureaucrats, migrant political leadership, and weak political parties, had few roots in the masses. As a consequence, general elections could not be held for 23 years (1947-1970) of the country’s initial history. On the expiry of the five years term of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1972-1977), the second general elections on the basis of the adult franchise were held on March 7, 1977, which the PPP won with a vast majority.

The opposition parties alleged that the elections had been “rigged on a massive scale”. It has been commented: Elections in Pakistan had been rigged before, notably the presidential election in 1965 and the Provincial Assembly,y elections in the early 1950s, but rigging in these instances did not arouse the mass uprising as it did in 1977. The people of Pakistan were evidently not of the same mind now as they were in those earlier periods.

Corruption in bureaucracy and among political leaders poses a grave threat to good democratic governance. Quaid-i-Azam had termed corruption as “poison” and asked to put that down with an “iron hand”. Now that the international Reconciliation Ordinance, .vnich had withdrawn from prosecution any person “falsely involved for political reasons or through political victimization” between 1986 and 1999, has lapsed on November 28, 2009, the concerned individuals should get themselves cleared in a court of law in a transparent manner. The tribal nature of society in Pakistan is susceptible to nepotism. As an antidote, accountability and transparency are necessary. It is a challenge to the people to reject those leaders and political parties which indulge in corruption and nepotism.

One of the main bottlenecks in constitutional development in Pakistan was that its two wings were separated by about 1000 miles of hostile territory. The eastern wing consisted of one province but was more populous’ than the western wing which was much larger in the area and had as many as four provinces.

The western wing was not prepared to concede majority representation to the eastern wing in the parliament. After a confrontation of nine years between the two wings, the solution was evolved in the l956 constitution in the shape of parity of representation in a quasi-federal structure, neutralizing the majority of the eastern wing and paving the way for the manipulated domination of the western wing.

The domination of the western wing in governance led to an insurgency in the eastern wing which culminated in the separation and independence of Bangladesh in 1971. In post-1971 Pakistan, it came to be realized that ideological moorings alone could not easily overcome ethnic and economic differences. Yet the anti-ethnic attitude and anti-modem thinking prevalent in certain segments of society lean toward a unitary or quasi-federal state as against a true federation.

The latest threat is emanating from extremism and terrorism, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). This is the spillover effect of the conflict in Afghanistan and is spreading to Pakistan. It is likely to continue as long as there is no peace and stability in that country. However, the military enjoying the support of the nation is successfully combating the extremists and terrorists under the supremacy of the civilian democratic government. It is hoped that the process would continue to its logical conclusion.

Due to the migration of literate Hindus and Sikhs to India, the literacy rate in Pakistan sharply declined. There was about 95 percent illiteracy in Pakistan in 1947, which acted as a hindrance to the growth of civil and democratic society. Feudalism and economic constraint did not permit any Pakistani government to launch a “crash course to expand literacy and grow higher standards.

The national economy has gone bankrupt and the national budget has become all foreign aid-dependent. Islam was the ideology that gave life to the Pakistan movement and later Pakistan itself but is now infested with sectarianism. Military policies gifted the country with cross-border terrorism and three million internally displaced people. Despite having the largest chunk of the national budget and being the seventh-largest army in the world, the Pakistan army is now in a mess of its own creation with little of its hard-earned prestige left to its credit.

The distorted face of the national system as a whole and the failure of the judiciary to guard the constitution of Pakistan are the major factors contributing to the change in the national mindset. The events of the last two years have clearly shown the preference of the people of Pakistan. The masses want democracy as a political and governing system for the country and a judiciary that guard the rights of the people. The military would be respected more if it stays in the barracks or guarded the national borders. The murder of Benazir Bhutto has taught new lessons.

If one compares Pakistani democracy with Western democracy it is said that for over 50 years, Pakistan remains occupied by three major interest groups in the time, opportunities, and resources of the besieged nation. The army, civil service, and the neo-colonial appointed landlords. If there was any rational tolerance scale, the Pakistani nation would certainly secure high marks on its standard of tolerance and survival under most unfavorable circumstances.

One of the pivotal factors supporting the notion of Western liberal democracies is that it provides opportunities for participation to ordinary citizens, right or wrong to culminate a sense of legitimacy for the election exercise and chose people of their interest to manage public affairs for a specified term. But the principles and standards for evil and good vary between the West and the Islamic world . Strange as is, in Pakistan, those who come to occupy the political offices never intend to quit the political power on their own except implication of military force through a coup.

Comparatively, on occasions, western democracies do” encourage educated and competent citizens to strive for their high ideas and ideals and come to the front stage and demonstrate their intentions and will power to seek the goal of ideal public service agendas. E.H. Carr defines the teaching-learning role of history and its value must not be ignored but preserved. Recall the Pakistani military dictators for the last forty-plus years, they each consumed a decade or more to relinquish power, that was not theirs in any systematic and logical context. Ayub Khan was ousted by Yahya Khan.

General Yahya with the complacency of Z.A. Bhutto surrendered East Pakistan to India (now Bangladesh) to share power with Bhutto but was put under house arrest as Bhutto assumed the power that did not belong to him based on the verdict of the people. Rightfully, it was Sheikh MujiburRehman, leader of the East Pakistan Awami League who should have been sworn in as the new leader of united Pakistan but it was treacherously undone by Yahya and Bhutto.

Both should have been tried as traitors in a court of law and punished. Not so, they were rewarded and Bhutto became the first civilian martial law administrator and self-made president of defeated Pakistan in December 1971. Dr.Ishtiaq Qureshi, editor of the Urdu Digest recorded for the history (“Sukoot-e-Dacca seyPurdhautha Hay”- Facts are revealed after the Dacca Surrender) that “in the quest for its survival Pakistan lost its destiny. Yahya and Mujib stabbed the body of Pakistan with one dagger and Bhutto will stab Pakistan with another dagger.”

Suggestions for Democracy in Pakistan

Fo1lowing are the suggestions for improving democracy in Pakistan:

An impartial system of accountability enhances public trust in the political system. It provides enormous strength to the democratic process. Moreover, it compels thousand who are charged with governance, to transparently discharge their official responsibilities. It ensures good governance and strengthens the political setup. In spite of facing innumerable challenges and showing unsatisfactory performance, Pakistanis have the capability to emerge as a democratic and progressive nation. Pakistan can road to democracy with the dedication, determination, commitment, courage, and patriotism of its political leaders.

Reforming the judiciary and incorporating Islamic laws can also soothe the deprived and poor masses who have been manipulated by the extremists due to the sheer negligence of the elected governments and ruling elite. This natura11y causes bitterness toward the present form of political setup.

Moving on, corruption and selfish attitudes are eating away at the institutional structure of our country and such practices never allow democracy to flourish. There is also a need for mature political leadership, which can think above its own gains. All this can only emerge after the formulation and implementation of strict accountability.

On the contrary, weak public institutions can be made strong and productive if the power and authority seep down. The example of many European countries is in front of us, where institutions are powerful and not politicians. Democracy in actuality can only be achieved through such measures.

Our constitution has been a source of constant controversy. Be it the realization of Islamic laws or the concentration of power in the head of the state, the constitution has served as a tool for the legitimization of alien changes and policies. Keeping the constitution intact has been long overdue. No one in power should be allowed to change it for prolongation of rule or appeasing any particular section. The Pakistani movement envisaged a democratic country with a federal structure.

In all Constitutions of Pakistan (1956, 1962, and 1973) the objectives of governance, in the words of Dr. Ainslie T. Embree, Professor Emeritus of Columbia University, are democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam, giving Muslims freedom to live their lives in accordance with the teachings of Islam, but with minorities having full freedom to profess their own religions.

Islam lays emphasis on the concept of Shura, i.e., consultation among people, which is the essence of democratic culture. Quaid-i-Azam, the founder of Pakistan had stated:

“We leamed democracy 1300 years ago. Democracy is i11 our blood. It is ill our marrows. Dilly centuries of adverse circumstances have made the circulation of that blood cold. It has got frozen, and our arteries are not functioning. But thank God, the blood is circulating again, thanks to the Muslim League’s efforts. It will be a People’s government. Culturally, ill the region of Pakistan, there is a concept of Jirga or Panchayat, i.e., an assembly of elders, to settle issues and disputes involving two or more two persons. This system has, been prevalent for ages, much before the advent of Islam. Thus, both religion and age-old tradition advocate the concept of consultation in decision-making through all assembly of people, which is the essence of democracy.”

During the period of British supremacy in the subcontinent, the practice of elections to assemblies (local, provincial and central) was introduced through various enactments. Finally, it was the Government of India Act 1935 under which the dominions of India and Pakistan functioned after independence till they framed their own constitutions. These enactments provided the groundwork for democratic governance. It may be of interest to note that even when the democratic rule was suspended by the armed forces, the military rulers always came with the promise to restore democratic governance .

For instance, in 1970, General Yahya Khan is credited with organizing the first-ever general elections in the country, which led to the establishment of democratic governments both in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Besides holding general elections in 2002 and 2007, General Musharraf’s introduction of a local government system introduced in 2001 is considered a “laudable model of governance” because of its principle that whatever can be done at the local level should not be done at a higher tier of governance.

The country is on the path to achieving full literacy and progress towards a higher standard of education in important disciplines. This is strengthening the civil society in ensuring the prevalence of democratic culture at the lower and higher level of governance. Secondly, the print and electronic media in Pakistan are vibrant and independent. A responsible media educates the masses, raises political consciousness, and thus promotes democratic values, norms, and culture. In addition, a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are playing an active role in the field of education and contributing to the growth of a vibrant civil society and good governance.

The essential step seems to stop interruption in the democratic process so that we may see more than promos. To judge something, it has to be allowed a chance to survive and act. The elected government must be allowed to complete its tenure in any case. The military has to play a positive role here and not interfere in the smooth democratic process.

As mentioned before, a part of the population wants greater Islamic character in the Govt. and laws. If we analyze this demand, it will be apparent that the enforcement of Sharia is more related to lawmaking. Therefore, what is immediately required is a change in the judicial setup, which has been unable to gain the trust of people until recently. Encouraging steps have already started in this case, but much more needs to be done.

Sadly, the same corrupted pool of thought keeps appearing with new faces and the deceived masses blindly follow them. This is due to the absence of any kind of accountability. Political compromises enhance this trend. Such practices are against moral, democratic as well as Islamic principles and should end immediately.

Next, the all-powerful bureaucracy and feudal politicians should be stripped of their unwarranted authority. It has been a slow evil that has weakened the country like nothing else. They are elected for serving people not to control them. The criteria of merit; the right to freedom and equal progress for common people have become a joke due to such an autocratic setup.

The people of Pakistan in general lack political psyche and consciousness. This is largely due to poor literacy and a never-ending feudalistic rule over 60% of the country. Therefore, it is necessary to educate the masses and make them aware of their political rights. This can begin with greater political socialization by political parties and media.

In a democratic state, media has rightly been called the fourth pillar of the state. It can play a most important role in the present age for creating awareness. Our media has risen from the ashes like a phoenix. It, however, needs to play a positive constructive role and not become another compromised institution as well.

Finally, the strategic position and now the war against terror call forth unwanted attention from the international community sometimes. In the past, military rule has been covertly or openly supported by many countries to gain their own benefits in this region. The international powers must stop interfering in the democratic process and for that to happen, our own government, people and media need to be equally strong.

Politicians may have learned lessons from their past mistakes and are more mature politically. Consensus politics seem to be emerging in the country. In the past, the constant infighting amongst political parties had often led to interference and take-over by the armed forces.

Now a culture of reconciliation, accommodation, and dialogue is emerging. The ideological polarization is diminishing. After the general elections of February 2008, four major political parties, i.e., Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), PML – Nawaz (PML-N), Awami National Party (ANP), Jamiat-ulUlema-i-Islam – Fazalur Rahman (JUI-Fl and MuttahidaQaumi Movement (MQM) have joined hands to govern the country and re-establish the supremacy of the Parliament in accordance with the Constitution of 1973.

Our youth constitute 30% of the society they are representative of a new generation. Their participation may ensure structural improvements in the national paradigm. It has been witnessed that during the Pakistan movement youth played a vital role in opinion formation and mass awareness and so is the time now. There is a need to guide our youth to take responsibility for our tomorrow.

To sum up, it is the political leadership that can ensure the permanence of democratic governance. The prospects are, however, not as dismal as sometimes portrayed. Already, the literacy rate in Pakistan has increased to more than fifty-five percent. Efforts are afoot to improve the standard of higher education. Economic growth and industrialization have given birth to a vocal urban society and middle class, which is growing. and gradually lessening the influence of the feudal class.

The vibrant electronic and print media is playing an effective role in constructive criticism of the government and in educating the masses. Elections are being held regularly, representative political leadership and political parties are getting stronger and a peaceful mode of transfer of power is becoming the norm. The bureaucracy (both civil and military), though still powerful, may retreat gradually and submit to the people’s power and will and concede to democratic governance. The democratic process is progressing and, hopefully, will be obstructed and derailed, as in the past.

Expected question about this Essay:

• Why has democracy failed in Pakistan?
• What practical measures do you suggest for strengthening democracy in Pakistan?

You may also like these:

• View other Relevant Essay Topics
• CSS Guide for Beginners for 2022
• PMS Guide: Syllabus, Paper Pattern Compulsory & Optional Subjects
• CSS Past Paper Subject Wise 
• LLB Past Papers

I am interested in writing content for educational purpose.

Most relevant ▼

• Essay on “Innovations are Never-ending Headways” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Single National Curriculum Pave the Way for the Desired Ideological Integration in Pakistan Society” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Single National Curriculum Paving the Way for the desired ideological integration in Pakistan Society” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Inflation – A Result of Poor Economic Policies or a Part of Global Economic Woes” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Democracy without Justice is Tyranny” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Man is Born Free but Everywhere he is in Chains” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Power Corrupts: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely” for CSS and PMS
• Essay on the “Role of Social Media in the Modern World” for CSS and PMS
• Essay on “Terrorism and its Socioeconomic Implications” for CSS, and PMS

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.

Home » Complete Essay On Democracy For Beginners To Expert Level

Complete Essay On Democracy For Beginners To Expert Level

Learn complete essay topic on Democracy in English for beginners to expert level. This blog contains a 1000+ words essay on Democracy . Democracy is known as the finest form of G overnment . 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.

Table of Contents

1000+ Words Essay on Democracy

• Democracy is a popular form of Government. It is practiced successfully in many countries of the world.
• Dictatorship is a system of Government in which one party or one person rules the country.
• In Democracy there is full freedom of expressing public opinion.
• Democracy has many defects. It is difficult to form of Government. It is not successful in a country where most of the people are uneducated.
• Democracy in spite of all its defects is better than dictatorship.

Democracy is a popular form of Government. It is practiced successfully in many countries of the world. In this form of Government, people elect their own rulers. In a democratic country, there are many political parties. They take part in elections. The party which wins by the majority of the vote is declared successful. It is called to form Government. The rest of the parties are supposed to sit on the opposition benches. In the assembly, important issues are debated and discussed by both the ruling party as well as the opposition party. The decision on different problems of the country is taken after much deliberation .

Dictatorship is a system of Government in which one party or one person rules the country. The entire power rests with that party or the ruler. The party comes into power after the election. However, unlike democracy, there is no opposition party. All the votes are cast in favor of one party. In a dictatorship, no one can oppose the ruler. There are many restrictions on the freedom of people . An individual does not enjoy any type of freedom. The radio, the television, the newspaper, and other mass media conceal facts. In a dictatorship, an individual does not enjoy any respect. This form of Government is popular in communist countries such as Russia, China, and East Germany.

In a democracy, there is full freedom of expressing public opinion. An individual enjoys full freedom to think, write, and express his views. The press is completely free. The policies of the Government are debated and discussed freely in the newspaper as well as in the Assembly Hall. In a democracy, a person enjoys respect and importance.

Democracy is linked with justice. Everybody has equal rights in the eye of the law. The voters can choose and remove their rulers according to their own will. This form of Government is popular and successful in America, Britain, India, and Japan . Democracy has failed in underdeveloped countries. It has not worked successfully in many Asian countries. The reasons for its failure are the following:

Democracy is a difficult system of Government. Only educated and sensible people can understand and run it. In our country and in many other Asian countries , most people are uneducated and backward. They cannot understand the real spirit and structure of a democratic system of Government. Most of the people in our country are poor. At the time of the election , the voters were bribed and tempted to give votes in favor of irresponsible and uneducated candidates. In this way, in democracy, the responsible and educated candidates do not return to the assembly.

In a democratic form of Government, the candidates use unfair means to win the election. The candidates of the rival party are kidnapped. The ballot boxes are broken and undue pressure is exercised on the officers who conduct the election. In this way, the elections open the gateway to corruption, bribery, and selfishness.

Democracy has many merits but it has many demerits also. It is known for its inefficiency and slowness. At the time of national emergencies, it fails to cope with the situation. The national issues of great importance are debated and discussed in the assembly. It takes a long time to arrive at any decision. In this way, many problems of utmost importance remain unsolved in the light of the above discussion. We can say that democracy inspires by its defects is still a popular form of Government. It is better than dictatorship.

You may also like

Essay on Environmental Issues and Sustainable...

English Paragraph Writing In Easy Words | 15 Topics

1000+ Positive Words List In English | A To Z English...

Essay Writing On The Value of Computer | Essay On...

About the author.

By the People: Essays on Democracy

Harvard Kennedy School faculty explore aspects of democracy in their own words—from increasing civic participation and decreasing extreme partisanship to strengthening democratic institutions and making them more fair.

Winter 2020

By Archon Fung , Nancy Gibbs , Tarek Masoud , Julia Minson , Cornell William Brooks , Jane Mansbridge , Arthur Brooks , Pippa Norris , Benjamin Schneer

The basic terms of democratic governance are shifting before our eyes, and we don’t know what the future holds. Some fear the rise of hateful populism and the collapse of democratic norms and practices. Others see opportunities for marginalized people and groups to exercise greater voice and influence. At the Kennedy School, we are striving to produce ideas and insights to meet these great uncertainties and to help make democratic governance successful in the future. In the pages that follow, you can read about the varied ways our faculty members think about facets of democracy and democratic institutions and making democracy better in practice.

Explore essays on democracy

Archon fung: we voted, nancy gibbs: truth and trust, tarek masoud: a fragile state, julia minson: just listen, cornell william brooks: democracy behind bars, jane mansbridge: a teachable skill, arthur brooks: healthy competition, pippa norris: kicking the sandcastle, benjamin schneer: drawing a line.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Normative democratic theory deals with the moral foundations of democracy and democratic institutions, as well as the moral duties of democratic representatives and citizens. It is distinct from descriptive and explanatory democratic theory, which aim to describe and explain how democracy and democratic institutions function. Normative democracy theory aims to provide an account of when and why democracy is morally desirable as well as moral principles for guiding the design of democratic institutions and the actions of citizens and representatives. Of course, normative democratic theory is inherently interdisciplinary and must draw on the results of political science, sociology, psychology, and economics in order to give concrete moral guidance.

This brief outline of normative democratic theory focuses attention on seven related issues. First, it proposes a definition of democracy. Second, it outlines different approaches to the question of why democracy is morally valuable at all. Third, it discusses the issue of whether and when democratic institutions have authority and different conceptions of the limits of democratic authority. Fourth, it explores the question of what it is reasonable to demand of citizens in large democratic societies. This issue is central to the evaluation of normative democratic theories. A large body of opinion has it that most classical normative democratic theory is incompatible with what we can reasonably expect from citizens. Fifth, it surveys different accounts of the proper characterization of equality in the processes of representation and the moral norms of representation. Sixth, it discusses the relationship between central findings in social choice theory and democracy. Seventh, it discusses the question of who should be included in the group that makes democratic decisions.

1. Democracy Defined

2.1.1.1 the production of relatively good laws and policies: responsiveness theories, 2.1.1.2 the production of relatively good laws and policies: epistemic theories, 2.1.1.3 character-based arguments, 2.1.2 instrumental arguments against democracy, 2.1.3 grounds for instrumentalism, 2.2.1 liberty, 2.2.2 democracy as public justification, 2.2.3 equality, 3.1 instrumentalist conceptions of democratic authority, 3.2.1 democracy as collective self-rule, 3.2.2 freedom and democratic authority, 3.2.3 equality and authority, 3.3.1 internal limits to democratic authority, 3.3.2 the problem of persistent minorities, 3.3.3 external limits to democratic authority, 4.1 the problem of democratic participation, 4.2.1 elite theory of democracy, 4.2.2 interest group pluralism, 4.2.3 neo-liberalism.

• 4.2.4. The self-interest assumption

4.2.5 The Division of Democratic Labor

4.3.1 the duty to vote, 4.3.2 principled disobedience of the law, 4.3.3 accommodate disagreement through compromise and consensus, 5.1 what sort of representative system is best, 5.2 the ethics of representation, 6. social choice and democracy, 7. the boundary problem: constituting the demos, other internet resources, related entries.

The term “democracy”, as we will use it in this entry, refers very generally to a method of collective decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the decision-making process. Four aspects of this definition should be noted. First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which we mean decisions that are made for groups and are meant to be binding on all the members of the group. Second, we intend for this definition to cover many different kinds of groups and decision-making procedures that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations. The definition is also consistent with different electoral systems, for example first-past-the-post voting and proportional representation. Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight. It is compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to a parliament where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including substantive equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building leading up to the vote. “Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct referenda of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to make the decisions.

The function of normative democratic theory is not to settle questions of definition but to determine which, if any, of the forms democracy may take are morally desirable and when and how. To evaluate different moral justifications of democracy, we must decide on the merits of the different principles and conceptions of human beings and society from which they proceed.

2. The Justification of Democracy

In this section, we examine different views concerning the justification of democracy. Proposed justifications of democracy identify values or reasons that support democracy over alternative forms of decision-making, such as oligarchy or dictatorship. It is important to distinguish views concerning the justification of democracy from views concerning the authority of democracy, which we examine in section 3 . Attempts to establish democratic authority identify values or reasons in virtue of which subjects have a duty to obey democratic decisions. Justification and authority can come apart (Simmons 2001: ch. 7)—it is possible to hold that the balance of values or reasons supports democracy over alternative forms of decision-making while denying that subjects have a duty to obey democratic decisions.

We can evaluate the justification of democracy along at least two different dimensions: instrumentally, by reference to the outcomes of using it compared with other methods of political decision; or intrinsically, by reference to values that are inherent in the method.

2.1 Instrumentalism

2.1.1 instrumental arguments in favor of democracy.

Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed to democracy: (1) the production of relatively good laws and policies and (2) improvements in the characters of the participants.

It is often argued that democratic decision-making best protects subjects’ rights or interests because it is more responsive to their judgments or preferences than competing forms of government. John Stuart Mill, for example, argues that since democracy gives each subject a share of political power, democracy forces decision-makers to take into account the rights and interests of a wider range of subjects than are taken into account under aristocracy or monarchy (Mill 1861: ch. 3). There is some evidence that as groups are included in the democratic process, their interests are better advanced by the political system. For example, when African Americans regained the right to vote in the United States in 1965, they were able to secure many more benefits from the state than previously (Wright 2013). Economists argue that democracy promotes economic growth (Acemoglu et al. 2019). Several contemporary authors defend versions of this instrumental argument by pointing to the robust empirical correlation between well-functioning democratic institutions and the strong protection of core liberal rights, such as rights to a fair trial, bodily integrity, freedom of association, and freedom of expression (Gaus 1996: ch. 13; Christiano 2011; Gaus 2011: ch. 22).

A related instrumental argument for democracy is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues that

no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press. (Sen 1999: 152)

The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor.

Epistemic justifications of democracy argue that, under the right conditions, democracy is generally more reliable than alternative methods at producing political decisions that are correct according to procedure-independent standards. While there are many different explanations for the reliability of democratic decision-making, we outline three of the most prominent explanations here: (1) Condorcet’s Jury Theorem, (2) the effects of cognitive diversity, and (3) information gathering and sharing.

The most prominent explanation for democracy’s epistemic reliability rests on Condorcet’s Jury Theorem (CJT), a mathematical theorem developed by eighteenth-century mathematician the Marquis de Condorcet that builds on the so-called “law of large numbers”. CJT states that, when certain assumptions hold, the probability that a majority of voters support the correct decision increases and approaches one as the number of voters increases. The assumptions are (Condorcet 1785):

• each voter is more likely than not to identify the correct decision (the competence assumption );
• voters vote for what they believe is the correct decision (the sincerity assumption );
• votes are statistically independent of one another (the independence assumption ).

While Condorcet’s original proof was restricted to decisions with only two choices, more recent work argues that CJT can be extended to decisions with three or more choices (List & Goodin 2001). The use of CJT to explain democracy’s reliability is often thought to originate with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s claim that

[i]f, when a sufficiently informed populace deliberates, the citizens were to have no communication among themselves, the general will would always result from the large number of small differences, and the deliberation would always be good. (Rousseau 1762: Book III, ch. IV)

Contemporary theorists continue to rely on CJT, or variants of it, to justify democracy (Barry 1965; Cohen 1986; Grofman and Feld 1988; Goodin & Spiekermann 2019).

The appeal of CJT for epistemic democrats derives from the fact that, if its underlying assumptions are satisfied, decisions produced by even moderately-sized electorates are almost certain to be correct. For example, if the assumptions of CJT hold for an electorate of 10,000 voters, and if each voter is 51 percent likely to identify the correct decision of two options, then the probability that a majority will select the correct decision is 99.97 percent. The formal mathematics of CJT are not subject to dispute. However, critics of CJT-based arguments for democracy argue that the assumptions underlying CJT are rarely, if ever, satisfied in actual democracies (see Black 1963: 159–65; Ladha 1992; Estlund 1997b; 2008: ch. XII; Anderson 2006). First, many have remarked that voters’ opinions are not independent of each other. Indeed, the democratic process seems to emphasize persuasion and coalition building. Second, the theorem does not seem to apply to cases in which the information that voters have access to, and on the basis of which they make their judgments, is segmented in various ways. Segmentation occurs when some sectors of the society do not have the relevant information while others do have it. Modern societies and politics seem to instantiate this kind of segmentation in terms of class, race, ethnic groupings, religion, occupational position, geographical place and so on. Finally, all voters approach issues they have to make decisions on with strong ideological biases that undermine the claim that each voter is bringing a kind of independent observation on the nature of the common good to the vote.

Advocates of CJT-based justifications of democracy generally respond to these sorts of criticisms by attempting to develop variations of CJT with weaker assumptions. These assumptions are more easily satisfied in democracies and so the revised theorems may show that even moderately-sized electorates are almost certain to produce correct decisions (Grofman & Feld 1988; Austen-Smith 1992; Austen-Smith & Banks 1996).

A second common epistemic justification for democracy—which is often traced to Aristotle ( Politics , Book II, Ch. 11; see Waldron 1995)—argues that democratic procedures are best able to exploit the underlying cognitive diversity of large groups of citizens to solve collective problems. Since democracy brings a lot of people into the process of decision making, it can take advantage of many sources of information and perspectives in assessing proposed laws and policies. More recently, Hélène Landemore (2013) has drawn on the “diversity-trumps-ability” theorem of Scott Page and Lu Hong (Hong & Page 2004; Page 2007)—which states that a random collection of agents drawn from a large set of limited-ability agents typically outperforms a collection of the very best agents from that same set—to argue that democracy can be expected to produce better decisions than rule by experts. Both Page and Hong’s original theorem and Landemore’s use of it to justify democracy are subject to dispute (see Quirk 2014; Brennan 2014; Thompson 2014; Bajaj 2014).

A third common epistemic justification for democracy relies on the idea that democratic decision-making tends to be more informed than other forms of decision-making about the interests of citizens and the causal mechanisms necessary to advance those interests. John Dewey argues that democracy involves “a consultation and a discussion which uncovers social needs and troubles”. Even if experts know how best to solve collective problems, they need input from the masses to correct their biases tell them where the problems lie (Dewey 1927 [2012: 154–155]; see also Anderson 2006; Knight & Johnson 2011).

Many have endorsed democracy on the grounds that democracy has beneficial effects on the characters of subjects. Many agree with Mill and Rousseau that democracy tends to make people stand up for themselves more than other forms of rule do because it makes collective decisions depend on their input more than monarchy or aristocracy do. Hence, in democratic societies individuals are encouraged to be more autonomous. Relatedly, by giving citizens a share of control over political-decision-making, democracy cultivates citizens with active and productive characters rather than passive characters. In addition, it has been argued that democracy tends to get people to think carefully and rationally more than other forms of rule because it makes a difference to political outcomes whether they do or not. Finally, some argue that democracy tends to enhance the moral qualities of citizens. When they participate in making decisions, they have to listen to others, they are called upon to justify themselves to others and they are forced to think in part in terms of the interests of others. Some have argued that when people find themselves in this kind of circumstance, they can be expected genuinely to think in terms of the common good and justice. Hence, some have argued that democratic processes tend to enhance the autonomy, rationality, activity, and morality of participants. Since these beneficial effects are thought to be worthwhile in themselves, they count in favor of democracy and against other forms of rule (Mill 1861 [1991: 74]; Elster 1986 [2003: 152]; Hannon 2020).

Some argue in addition that the above effects on character tend to enhance the quality of legislation as well. A society of autonomous, rational, active, and moral decision-makers is more likely to produce good legislation than a society ruled by a self-centered person or a small group of persons who rule over slavish and unreflective subjects. Of course, the soundness of any of the above arguments depends on the truth of the causal theories of the consequences of different institutions.

Not all instrumental arguments favor democracy. Plato argues that democracy is inferior to various forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy on the grounds that democracy tends to undermine the expertise necessary to the proper governance of societies (Plato 1974, Book VI). Most people do not have the kinds of intellectual talents that enable them to think well about the difficult issues that politics involves. But in order to win office or get a piece of legislation passed, politicians must appeal to these people’s sense of what is right or not right. Hence, the state will be guided by very poorly worked out ideas that experts in manipulation and mass appeal use to help themselves win office. Plato argues instead that the state should be ruled by philosopher-kings who have the wisdom and moral character required for good rule. He thus defends a version of what David Estlund calls “epistocracy”, a form of oligarchy that involves rule by experts (Estlund 2003).

Mill defends a form of epistocracy that is sometimes referred to as the “plural voting” scheme (1861: ch. 4). While all rational adults get at least one vote under this scheme, some citizens get a greater number of votes based on satisfying some measure of political expertise. While Mill identifies the relevant measure of expertise in terms of formal education, the plural voting scheme is consistent with other measures. This scheme might be thought to combine the instrumental value of political expertise with the intrinsic value of broad inclusion.

One objection to any form of epistocracy—the demographic objection —holds that any criterion of expertise is likely to select demographically homogeneous individuals who are be biased in ways that undermine their ability to produce political outcomes that promote the general welfare (Estlund 2003).

Hobbes argues that democracy is inferior to monarchy because democracy fosters destabilizing dissension among subjects (Hobbes 1651: chap. XIX). On his view, individual citizens and even politicians are apt not to have a sense of responsibility for the quality of legislation because no one makes a significant difference to the outcomes of decision making. As a consequence, citizens’ concerns are not focused on politics and politicians succeed only by making loud and manipulative appeals to citizens in order to gain more power, but all lack incentives to consider views that are genuinely for the common good. Hence the sense of lack of responsibility for outcomes undermines politicians’ concern for the common good and inclines them to make sectarian and divisive appeals to citizens.

Many contemporary theorists expand on these Platonic and Hobbesian criticisms. A good deal of empirical data shows that citizens of large-scale democracies are ill-informed and apathetic about politics. This makes room for special interests to control the behavior of politicians and use the state for their own limited purposes all the while spreading the costs to everyone. Moreover, there is empirical evidence that democratic citizens often engage in motivated reasoning that unconsciously aims to affirm their existing political identities rather than arrive at correct judgments (Lord, Ross, & Lepper 1979; Bartels 2002; Kahan 2013; Achen & Bartels 2016). Some theorists argue that these considerations justify abandoning democracy altogether, while modest versions of these arguments have been used to justify modification of democratic institutions (Caplan 2007; Somin 2013; Brennan 2016). Relatedly, some theorists argue that rather than having beneficial effects on the characters of subjects as Mill and others argue, democracy actually has deleterious effects on the subjects’ characters and relationships (Brennan 2016: ch. 3).

Pure instrumentalists argue that these instrumental arguments for and against the democratic process are the only bases on which to evaluate the justification of democracy or compare it with other forms of political decision-making. There are a number of different kinds of argument for pure instrumentalism. One kind of argument proceeds from a more general moral theory. For example, classical utilitarianism has no room in its monistic axiology for the intrinsic values of fairness and liberty or the intrinsic importance of an egalitarian distribution of political power. Its sole concern with maximizing utility—understood as pleasure or desire satisfaction—guarantees that it can provide only instrumental arguments for and against democracy.

But one need not be a thoroughgoing utilitarian to argue for instrumentalism in democratic theory. There are arguments in favor of instrumentalism that pertain directly to the question of democracy and collective decision making generally. One argument states that political power involves the exercise of power of some over others. And it argues that the exercise of power of one person over another can only be justified by reference to the protection of the interests or rights of the person over whom power is exercised. Thus no distribution of political power could ever be justified except by reference to the quality of outcomes of the decision making process (Arneson 1993 [2002: 96–97]; 2003; 2004; 2009). Another sort of argument for instrumentalism proceeds negatively, attempting to show that the non-instrumental values most commonly used in attempted justifications for democracy do not actually justify democracy, and that an instrumental justification for democracy is therefore the only available sort of justification (Wall 2007).

Other arguments question the coherence of the idea of intrinsically fair collective decision making processes. For instance, social choice theory questions the idea that there can be a fair decision making function that transforms a set of individual preferences into a rational collective preference. The core objection is that no general rule satisfying reasonable constraints can be devised that can transform any set of individual preferences into a rational social preference. And this is taken to show that democratic procedures cannot be intrinsically fair (Riker 1982: 116). Ronald Dworkin argues that the idea of equality, which is for him at the root of social justice, cannot be given a coherent and plausible interpretation when it comes to the distribution of political power among members of the society. The relation of politicians to citizens inevitably gives rise to inequality; the process of democratic deliberation inevitably gives those with superior argument making abilities and greater willingness to participate more influence and therefore more power, than others, so equality of political power cannot be intrinsically fair or just (Dworkin 2000). In later work, Dworkin has pulled back from this originally thoroughgoing instrumentalism (Dworkin 1996).

2.2 Non-instrumentalism

Few theorists deny that political institutions must be at least in part evaluated in terms of the outcomes of having those institutions. Some argue in addition, that some forms of decision making are morally desirable independent of the consequences of having them. A variety of different approaches have been used to show that democracy has this kind of intrinsic value.

One prominent justification for democracy appeals to the value of liberty. According to one version of the view, democracy is grounded in the idea that each ought to be master of his or her life. Each person’s life is deeply affected by the larger social, legal and cultural environment in which he or she lives. Only when each person has an equal voice and vote in the process of collective decision-making will each have equal control over this larger environment. Thinkers such as Carol Gould conclude that only when some kind of democracy is implemented, will individuals have a chance at self-government (Gould 1988: 45–85). Since individuals have a right of self-government, they have a right to democratic participation. The idea is that the right of self-government gives one a right, within limits, to do wrong. Just as an individual has a right to make some bad decisions for himself or herself, so a group of individuals have a right to make bad or unjust decisions for themselves regarding those activities they share.

One major difficulty with this line of argument is that it appears to require that the basic rule of decision-making be consensus or unanimity. If each person must freely choose the outcomes that bind him or her then those who oppose the decision are not self-governing. They live in an environment imposed on them by others. So only when all agree to a decision are they freely adopting the decision (Wolff 1970: ch. 2). The trouble is that there is rarely agreement on major issues in politics. Indeed, it appears that one of the main reasons for having political decision making procedures is that they can settle matters despite disagreement.

One liberty-based argument that might seem to escape this worry appeals to an irreducibly collective right to self-determination. It is often argued that political communities have a right as a community to organize themselves politically in accordance with their values, principles, or commitments. Some argue that the right to collective self-determination requires democratic institutions that give citizens collective control over their political and legal structure (Cassese 1995). However, many argue democratic institutions are sufficient but not necessary to realize the right to collective self-determination because political communities might exercise this right to implement non-democratic institutions (Altman & Wellman 2009; Stilz 2016).

Another non-instrumental justification of democracy appeals to the ideal of public justification. The idea behind this approach is that laws and policies are legitimate to the extent that they are publicly justified to the citizens of the community. Public justification is justification to each citizen as a result of free and reasoned debate among equals.

Jürgen Habermas’s discourse theory of deliberative democracy has been highly influential in the development of this approach. Habermas analyses the form and function of modern legal systems through the lens of his theory of communicative action. This analysis yields the Democratic Principle:

[O]nly those statutes may claim legitimacy that can meet with the assent of all citizens in a discursive process of legislation that in turn has been legally constituted. (Habermas 1992 [1996: 110])

Habermas advances a conception of democratic legitimacy according to which law is legitimate only if it results from a free and inclusive democratic process of “opinion and will-formation”. What might such a process look like in a complex and differentiated society? Habermas answers by advancing a “two-track” model that understands democratic legitimation in terms of the relationship between institutionalized deliberative bodies (e.g legislatures, agencies, courts) and informal communication in the public sphere, which is “wild”, and not centrally coordinated.

One possible objection to this view is that free and inclusive democratic procedures are insufficient to satisfy the demand for deliberative consensus embodied in the Democratic Principle. This demand is unlikely to be satisfied in diverse societies, since deep disagreements about which laws ought to be enacted is likely to remain after the relevant process of opinion and will-formation. The Democratic Principle might thus be thought to embody an overly idealistic conception of democratic legitimacy (Estlund 2008: ch.10). Another possible worry is that the Discourse Principle is not a genuine moral principle, but a principle that embodies the felicity conditions of practical discourse. As such, the Discourse Principle cannot ground a conception of democratic legitimacy that yields robust moral prescriptions (Forst 2016).

Drawing on Habermas and John Rawls, among others, Joshua Cohen (1996 [2003]) develops a conception of democracy in which citizens justify laws and policies on the basis of mutually acceptable reasons. Democracy, properly understood, is the context in which individuals freely engage in a process of reasoned discussion and deliberation on an equal footing. The ideas of freedom and equality provide guidelines for structuring democratic institutions.

The aim of Cohen’s conception of democracy as public justification is reasoned consensus among citizens. But a serious problem arises when we ask about what happens when disagreement remains. Two possible replies have been suggested. It has been urged that forms of consensus weaker than full consensus are sufficient for public justification and that the weaker varieties are achievable in many societies. For instance, there may be consensus on the list of reasons that are acceptable publicly but disagreement on the weight of the different reasons. Or there may be agreement on general reasons abstractly understood but disagreement about particular interpretations of those reasons. What would have to be shown here is that such weak consensus is achievable in many societies and that the disagreements that remain are not incompatible with the ideal of public justification.

The basic principle seems to be the principle of reasonableness according to which reasonable persons will only offer principles for the regulation of their society that other reasonable persons can reasonably accept. One only offers principles that others, who restrain themselves in the same way, can accept. Such a principle implies a kind of principle of restraint which requires that reasonable persons avoid proposing laws and policies on the basis of controversial moral or philosophical principles. When individuals offer proposals for the regulation of their society, they ought not to appeal to the whole truth as they see it but only to that part of the whole truth that others can reasonably accept. To put the matter in the way Rawls puts it: political society must be regulated by principles on which there is an overlapping consensus (Rawls 2005: Lecture IV). This is meant to obviate the need for a complete consensus on the principles that regulate society.

However, it is hard to see how this approach avoids the need for a complete consensus, which is highly unlikely to occur in any even moderately diverse society. The reason for this is that it is not clear why it is any less of an imposition on me when I propose legislation or policies for the society that I must restrain myself to considerations that other reasonable people accept than it is an imposition on others when I attempt to pass legislation on the basis of reasons they reasonably reject. For if I do restrain myself in this way, then the society I live in will not live up to the standards that I believe are essential to evaluating the society. I must then live in and support a society that does not accord with my conception of how it ought to be organized. It is not clear why this is any less of a loss of control over society than for those who must live in a society that is partly regulated by principles they do not accept. If one is a problem, then so is the other, and complete consensus is the only solution (Christiano 2009).

Many democratic theorists have argued that democracy is a way of treating persons as equals when there is good reason to impose some kind of organization on their shared lives but they disagree about how best to do it. Peter Singer argues that when people insist on different ways of arranging matters properly, each person in a sense claims a right to be dictator over their shared lives (Singer 1973: 30–41). But these claims to dictatorship cannot all hold up. Democracy embodies a kind of peaceful and fair compromise among these conflicting claims to rule. Each compromises equally on what he claims as long as the others do, resulting in each having an equal say over decision making. In effect, democratic decision making respects each person’s point of view on matters of common concern by giving each an equal say about what to do in cases of disagreement (Singer 1973; Waldron 1999: chap. 5).

What if people disagree on the democratic method or on the particular form democracy is to take? Are we to decide these latter questions by means of a higher order procedure? And if there is disagreement on the higher order procedure, must we also democratically decide that question? The view seems to lead to an infinite regress.

An alternative way of justifying democracy on the basis of equality is to ground democracy in public equality. Public equality is a principle of equality which ensures that people can see that they are being treated as equals. This view arises from three ideas. First, there is the basic egalitarian idea that people’s interests ought to be equally advanced, or at least that they ought to have equal opportunities to advance them. Second, human beings generally have highly fallible and biased understandings of their own and other people’s interests. Third, persons have fundamental interests in being able to see that they are being treated as equals. Public equality is an egalitarian principle that can be seen to be realized among persons despite the dramatically incomplete forms of knowledge people have. It is not all of justice, but it is essential that the principle be realized in a pluralistic society.

Democracy is a uniquely publicly egalitarian way to make collective decisions when there is substantial disagreement and conflict of interest among persons about how to shape the society they share. Each can see that the only plausible way of overcoming persistent disagreement over how to shape the society they all live in, while still publicly treating all persons as equals in the face of bias and fallibility, is to give each person an equal say in the process of shaping that society. Thus, democracy is necessary to the realization of public equality in a political society. Within the framework determined by this publicly realized equality, persons are permitted to attempt to bring about their more particular ideas about justice and the common good that they think are right.

The idea of public equality also grounds limits to democratic decision making. The thought is that a society cannot democratically decide to abolish the democratic rights of some of its members. Public equality also requires that basic liberal and civil rights be respected as well, by the democratic process and so serves as a limit to democratic decision making (Christiano 2008; Valentini 2013).

A number of worries attend this kind of view. First, it is generally thought that majority rule is required for treating persons as equals in collective decision making. This is because only majority rule is neutral towards alternatives in decision making. Unanimity tends to favor the status quo as do various forms of supermajority rule. But if this is so, the above view raises the twin dangers of majority tyranny and of persistent minorities, i.e., groups of persons who find themselves always losing in majority decisions. Surely these latter phenomena must be incompatible with public equality. Second, the kind of view defended above is susceptible to the worry that political equality is not a coherent ideal in any modern state with a complex division of labor and the need for representation. This last worry will be discussed in more detail in the next sections on democratic citizenship and legislative representation. The first worry will be discussed more in the discussion on the limits to democratic authority.

A related approach grounds democracy in the ideal of relational equality . A concern with relational equality is a concern for

human relationships that are, in certain crucial respects at least, unstructured by differences of rank, power, or status. (Scheffler 2010: 225)

Niko Kolodny argues that democratic institutions are an essential component of relational equality (Kolodny 2014a,b). One line of Kolodny’s argument holds that political decisions involve the use of coercive force. Inequalities in the power to use force undermine equal social status at least in part because the power to use force is “the power that usually determines the distribution of other powers” (Kolodny 2014b: 307). Individuals who have superior power to use force on others have a superior social status. An egalitarian distribution of political power is thus essential for realizing social equality. And only democratic institutions provide an egalitarian distribution of political power. We will discuss the relationship between relational equality and democracy further when we discuss the authority of democracy in Part 3 below.

3. The Authority of Democracy

Since democracy is a collective decision process, the question naturally arises about whether there is any duty of citizens to obey democratic decisions when they disagree with it.

There are three main concepts of the legitimate authority of the state. First, a state has legitimate authority to the extent that it is morally justified in coercively imposing its rule on the members. Legitimate authority on this account has no direct implications concerning the obligations or duties that citizens may hold toward that state. It simply says that if the state is morally justified in doing what it does, then it has legitimate authority. Second, a state has legitimate authority to the extent that its directives generate duties in citizens to obey. The duties of the citizens need not be owed to the state but they are real duties to obey. The third is that the state has a right to rule that is correlated with the citizens’ duty to it to obey it. This is the strongest notion of authority and it seems to be the core idea behind the legitimacy of the state. The idea is that when citizens disagree about law and policy it is important to be able to answer the question, who has the right to choose?

Instrumental arguments for democracy give some reason for why one ought to respect the democracy when one disagrees with its decisions. There may be many instrumental considerations that play a role in deciding on the question of whether one ought to obey. And these instrumental considerations are pretty much the same whether one is considering obedience to democracy or some other form of rule.

There is one instrumentalist approach which is quite unique to democracy and that seems to ground a strong conception of democratic authority. That is the epistemic approach inspired by the Condorcet Jury Theorem, which we discussed in section 2.1.1.2 above. There, we discussed a number of difficulties with the application of the Condorcet Jury Theorem to the case of voting in elections and referenda in large-scale democracies, including lack of independence, informational segmentation, and the existence of ideological biases.

One further worry about the Jury Theorem’s epistemic conceptions of authority is that it would prove too much since it undermines the common practice of the loyal opposition in democracies. If the background conditions of the Jury Theorem are met, a large-scale democracy majority is practically certain to produce the right decisions. On what basis can citizens in a political minority rationally hold on to their competing views? The members of the minority have a powerful reason for shifting their allegiance to the majority position, since each has very good reason to think that the majority is right. The epistemic conception of authority based on the Jury Theorem thus threatens to be objectionably authoritarian, since it looks like it demands not only obedience of action but obedience of thought as well. Even in scientific communities the fact that a majority of scientists favor a particular view does not make the minority scientists think that they are wrong, though it does perhaps give them pause (Goodin 2003: ch. 7).

Some theories of democratic authority combine instrumental and non-instrumental considerations. David Estlund argues that democratic procedures have legitimate authority because they are better than random and epistemically the best of the political systems that are acceptable to all reasonable citizens (Estlund 2008). They must be better than random because, otherwise, why wouldn’t we use a fair random procedure like a lottery or coin flip? Democratic authority must have an epistemic element. And the justification of democratic procedure must be acceptable to all reasonable citizens in order to respect their freedom and equality. Estlund’s conception of democratic authority—which he calls “epistemic proceduralism”— thus combines the ideal of public justification with a concern for the tendency of democracies to produce good decisions.

3.2 Intrinsic Conceptions of Democratic Authority

Some theorists argue that there is a special relation between democracy and legitimate authority grounded in the value of collective self-rule. John Locke argues that when a person consents to the creation of a political society, they necessarily consent to the use of majority rule in deciding how the political society is to be organized (Locke 1690: sec. 96). Locke thinks that majority rule is the natural decision rule when there is disagreement. He argues that a society is a kind of collective body that must move in the direction of the greater force. One way to understand this argument is as follows. If we think of each member of society as an equal and if we think that there is likely to be disagreement beyond the question of whether to join society or not, then we must accept majority rule as the appropriate decision rule. This interpretation of the greater force argument assumes that the expression “greater force” is to be understood in terms of the equal worth of each person’s interests and rights, so the society must go in the direction in which the greater number of persons wants it to go.

Locke thinks that a people, which is formed by individuals who consent to be members, could choose a monarchy by means of majority rule and so this argument by itself does not give us an argument for democracy. But Locke refers back to this argument when he defends the requirement of representative institutions for deciding when property may be regulated and taxes levied. He argues that a person must consent to the regulation or taxation of his property by the state. But he says that this requirement of consent is satisfied when a majority of the representatives of property holders consent to the regulation and taxation of property (Locke, 1690: sec. 140). This does seem to be moving towards a genuinely democratic conception of legitimate authority.

Rousseau argues that when individuals consent to form a political community, they agree to put themselves under the direction of the “general will” (Rousseau 1762). The general will is not a mere aggregation of individuals’ private wills. It is, rather, the will of the political community as a whole. And since the general will can only emerge as the product of a properly organized democratic procedure, individuals consent to put themselves under the direction of a properly organized democratic procedure. On one interpretation of Rousseau, democratic procedures are properly organized only when they (1) define rights that apply equally to all, (2) via a procedure that considers everyone’s interests equally, and (3) everyone who is coerced to obey the laws has a voice in that procedure.

There are at least two ways of understanding the idea of the general will. On what might be called the constitutive interpretation, the general will is constituted by the results of a properly organized democratic procedure. That is, the results of a properly organized democratic procedure are the general will in virtue of the fact that they emerge from a properly organized democratic procedure, and not because they reflect some procedure-independent truth about the common good. On what might be called the epistemic interpretation, the results of a properly organized democratic procedure are the way of tracking the procedure-independent truth about the common good. As we discussed in section 3.1 , Rousseau is often interpreted as appealing to Condorcet’s Jury Theorem to support the epistemic credentials of a properly organized democratic procedure.

Anna Stilz develops an account of democratic authority that appeals to the value of “freedom as independence” (Stilz 2009). Freedom as independence is freedom from being subject to the will of another. In order not to be subject to the will of others, individuals need property rights and a protected sphere of autonomy to pursue one’s plans. Drawing on Kant, Stilz argues that attempts by particular individuals, no matter how conscientious, to define and secure rights to property and autonomy in a state of nature will be inconsistent with freedom as independence. Such attempts unilaterally impose new obligations on others through acts of private will in the face of competing claims. But even if individuals in a state of nature do agree to a resolution of their competing claims, they are dependent on the will of others to honor this agreement. Stilz thus argues that justice must be administered by an authoritative legal system which can coercively impose one set of objective rules—rules we must respect even when we disagree—to adjudicate our conflicting claims. But if such a system is to be consistent with the freedom of subjects, it cannot be imposed by the private wills of rulers. The solution, Stilz argues, lies in Rousseau’s idea of the general will. When subjects obey the general will, they are not obeying the private will of any individual; they are obeying a will that arises from all and applies to all.

One worry with this account is that those who oppose democratically-enacted laws or policies can complain that those laws or policies are imposed against their will. Perhaps they are not subject to the will of a particular individual, but they are subject to the will of a majority. This might be thought to constitute a significant threat to individuals’ freedom as independence. Another worry, which Stilz’s view arguably inherits from Rousseau, is that the conditions for the general will to emerge are so demanding that the view implies that no state that exists or has existed has legitimate political authority. Stilz’s view might thus be thought to entail what A.J. Simmons calls “a posteriori anarchism” (Simmons 2001).

Another approach to democratic authority asserts that failing to obey the decisions of a democratic assembly amounts to treating one’s fellow citizens as inferiors (Christiano 2008: ch. 6). In the face of disagreement about substantive law and policy, democracy realizes a kind of public equality by giving each individual an equal say in determining which laws or policies will be enacted. Citizens who skirt laws made by suitably egalitarian procedures act contrary to the equal right of all citizens to have a say in making laws. Those who refuse to pay taxes or respect property laws on the grounds that they are unjust are affirming a superior right to that of others in determining how the shared aspects of social life ought to be arranged. Thus, they violate the duty to treat others publicly as equals. And there is reason to think this duty must normally have some pre-eminence. Public equality is the most important form of equality and democracy is required by public equality. The other forms of equality in play in substantive disputes about law and policy are ones about which people can have reasonable disagreements (within limits specified by the principle of public equality). Citizens thus have obligations to abide by the democratic process even if their favored conceptions of justice or equality are passed by in the decision making process.

Daniel Viehoff develops an egalitarian conception of democratic authority based on the ideal of relational equality (Viehoff 2014; see section 2.2.3 above for more on relational equality). Viehoff argues that relational equality is threatened by “subjection” in a relationship, which occurs when individuals have significantly different power over how they interact with and relate to one another. According to Viehoff, obeying the outcomes of egalitarian democratic procedures is necessary and sufficient for citizens to achieve coordination on common rules without subjection. It is sufficient because democratic procedures distribute decision-making power equally, which ensures that coordination is not determined by unequal power advantages. It is necessary because parties must set aside the considerations of greater and lesser power to realize non-subjection in their relationship.

Fabienne Peter develops a fairness-based conception of democratic authority that incorporates epistemic considerations (Peter 2008; 2009). Drawing on insights from proceduralist epistemology, Peter’s “pure epistemic proceduralism” holds that suitably egalitarian democratic decisions are binding at least in part because they result from a fair procedure of knowledge-production. This account differs from Estlund’s epistemic proceduralism (see section 5.1 above) because it does not condition the authority of democratic procedures on their ability to produce decisions that track the procedure-independent truth. Rather, the authority of democratic procedures is grounded in their fairness. And it differs from pure procedural accounts because the relevant notion of fairness is fairness in knowledge-production.

3.3 Limits to the Authority of Democracy

What are the limits to democratic authority? A limit to democratic authority is a principle violation of which defeats democratic authority. When the principle is violated by the democratic assembly, the assembly loses its authority in that instance or the moral weight of the authority is overridden. A number of different views have been offered on this issue. We can distinguish between internal and external limits to democratic authority. An internal limit arises from the constitutive requirements of the democratic process or from the principles that ground democracy. An external limit arises from principles that are independent of the values or requirements that ground democracy.

External limits to democratic authority are rebutting limits, which are principles that weigh against—and may sometimes outweigh the principles that ground democracy. So in a particular case, an individual may see that there are reasons to obey the assembly and some reasons against obeying the assembly and in the case at hand the reasons against obedience outweigh the reasons in favor of obedience. Internal limits to democratic authority are undercutting limits. These limits function not by weighing against the considerations in favor of authority, they undercut the considerations in favor of authority altogether; they simply short circuit the authority. When an undercutting limit is in play, it is not as if the principles which ground the limit outweigh the reasons for obeying the democratic assembly, it is rather that the reasons for obeying the democratic assembly are undermined altogether; they cease to exist or at least they are severely weakened.

Some have argued that the democratic process ought to be limited to decisions that are not incompatible with the proper functioning of the democratic process. So they argue that the democratic process may not legitimately take away the political rights of its citizens in good standing. It may not take away rights that are necessary to the democratic process such as freedom of association or freedom of speech. But these limits do not extend beyond the requirements for proper democratic functioning. They do not protect non political artistic speech or freedom of association in the case of non political activities (Ely 1980: chap. 4).

Another kind of internal limit is a limit that arises from the principles that underpin democracy. And the presence of this limit would seem to be necessary to making sense of the first limit because in order for the first limit to be morally important we need to know why a democracy ought to protect the democratic process.

Locke gives an account of the internal limits of democracy in his idea that there are certain things to which a citizen may not consent (Locke 1690: ch. XI). She may not consent to arbitrary rule or the violation of fundamental rights including democratic and liberal rights. Since consent is the basis of democratic authority for Locke, this account provides an explanation of the idea behind the first internal limit, that democracy may not be suspended by democratic means but it goes beyond that limit to suggest that rights that are not essentially connected with the exercise of the franchise may also not be violated because one may not consent to their violation.

More recently, Ronald Dworkin has defended an account of the limits of democratic authority (Dworkin 1996). He argues that democracy is justified by appeal to a principle of self-government. He argues that self-government cannot be realized unless all citizens are treated as full members of the political community, because, otherwise, they are not able to identify as members of the community. Among the conditions of full membership, he argues, are rights to be treated as equals and rights to have one’s moral independence respected. These principles support robust requirements of non-discrimination and of basic liberal rights.

The conception of democratic authority that grounds it in public equality also provides an account of the limits of that authority (Christiano 2008: ch. 6). Since democracy is founded in public equality, it may not violate public equality in any of its decisions. The basic idea is that overt violation of public equality by a democratic assembly undermines the claim that the democratic assembly embodies public equality. Democracy’s embodiment of public equality is conditional on its protecting public equality. To the extent that liberal rights are grounded in public equality and the provision of an economic minimum is also so grounded, this suggests that democratic rights and liberal rights and rights to an economic minimum create a limit to democratic authority. This account also provides a deep grounding for the kinds of limits to democratic authority defended in the first internal limit and it goes beyond these to the extent that protection of rights that are not connected with the exercise of the franchise is also necessary to public equality.

This account of the authority of democracy also provides some help with a vexing problem of democratic theory. This problem is the difficulty of persistent minorities. There is a persistent minority in a democratic society when that minority always loses in the voting. This is always a possibility in democracies because of the use of majority rule. If the society is divided into two or more highly unified voting blocks in which the members of each group votes in the same ways as all the other members of that group, then the group in the minority will find itself always on the losing end of the votes. This problem has plagued some societies, particularly those with indigenous peoples who live within developed societies. Though this problem is often connected with majority tyranny it is distinct from the problem of majority tyranny because it may be the case that the majority attempts to treat the minority well, in accordance with its conception of good treatment. It is just that the minority never agrees with the majority on what constitutes proper treatment. Being a persistent minority can be highly oppressive even if the majority does not try to act oppressively. This can be understood with the help of the very ideas that underpin democracy. Persons have interests in being able to correct for the cognitive biases of others and to be able to make the world in such a way that it makes sense to them. These interests are set back for a persistent minority since they never get their way.

The conception of democracy as grounded in public equality can shed light on this problem. It can say that the existence of a persistent minority violates public equality (Christiano 2008: chap. 7). In effect, a society in which there is a persistent minority is one in which that minority is being treated publicly as an inferior because it is clear that its fundamental interests are being set back. Hence to the extent that violations of public equality undercut the authority of a democratic assembly, the existence of a persistent minority undermines the authority of the democracy at least with respect to the minority. This suggests that certain institutions ought to be constructed so that the minority is not persistent.

One natural kind of limit to democratic authority is the external kind of limit. Here the idea is that there are certain considerations that favor democratic decision making and there are certain values that are independent of democracy that may be at issue in democratic decisions. For example, many theories recognize core liberal rights—such as rights to property, bodily integrity, and freedom of thought and expression—as external limits to democratic authority. Locke is often interpreted as arguing that individuals have natural rights to property in themselves and the external world that democratic laws must respect in order to have legitimate authority (Locke 1690).

Some views may assert that there are only external limits to democratic authority. But it is possible to think that there are both internal and external limits. Such an issue may arise in decisions to go to war, for example. In such decisions, one may have a duty to obey the decision of the democratic assembly on the grounds that this is how one treats one’s fellow citizens as equals but one may also have a duty to oppose the war on the grounds that the war is an unjust aggression against other people. To the extent that this consideration is sufficiently serious it may outweigh the considerations of equality that underpin democratic authority. Thus one may have an overall duty not to obey in this context. Issues of foreign policy in general seem to give rise to possible external limits to democracy.

4. The Demands of Democratic Participation

In this section, we examine the demands of participation in large-scale democracies. We begin by examining a core challenge to the idea that democratic citizens are capable of governing a large and complex society. We then explore different proposed solutions to the core challenge. Finally, we examine the moral duties of democratic citizens in large-scale democracies in light of the core challenge.

A vexing problem of democratic theory has been to determine whether ordinary citizens are up to the task of governing a large and complex society. There are three distinct problems here:

• Plato argued that some people are more intelligent and informed about political matters than others and have a superior moral character, and that those persons ought to rule ( The Republic , Book VI)
• Others have argued that a society must have a division of labor. If everyone were engaged in the complex and difficult task of politics, little time or energy would be left for the other essential tasks of a society. Conversely, if we expect most people to engage in other difficult and complex tasks, how can we expect them to have the time and resources sufficient to devote themselves intelligently to politics?
• Since individuals have so little impact on the outcomes of political decision making in large societies, they have little sense of responsibility for the outcomes. Some have argued that it is not rational to vote since the chances that an individual’s vote will a decide the outcome of an election (i.e., will determine whether a candidate gets elected or not) are nearly indistinguishable from zero. For example, one widely accepted estimate puts the odds of an individual casting the deciding vote in a United States presidential election at 1 in 100 million. Many estimates put the odds much lower. Worse still, Anthony Downs has argued that almost all of those who do vote have little reason to become informed about how best to vote (Downs 1957: ch.13). On the assumption that citizens reason and behave roughly according to the Downsian model, either the society must in fact be run by a relatively small group of people with minimal input from the rest or it will be very poorly run. As we can see these criticisms are echoes of the sorts of criticisms Plato and Hobbes made.

These observations pose challenges for any robustly egalitarian or deliberative conception of democracy. Without the ability to participate intelligently in politics one cannot use one’s votes to advance one’s aims nor can one be said to participate in a process of reasoned deliberation among equals. So, either equality of political power implies a kind of self-defeating equal participation of citizens in politics or a reasonable division of labor seems to undermine equality of power. And either substantial participation of citizens in public deliberation entails the relative neglect of other tasks or the proper functioning of the other sectors of the society requires that most people do not participate intelligently in public deliberation.

4.2 Proposed Solutions to the Problem of Democratic Participation

Some modern theorists of democracy, called elite theorists, have argued against any robustly egalitarian or deliberative forms of democracy in light of the problem of democratic participation. They argue that high levels of citizen participation tend to produce bad legislation designed by demagogues to appeal to poorly informed and overly emotional citizens. They look upon the alleged uninformedness of citizens evidenced in many empirical studies in the 1950s and 1960s as perfectly reasonable and predictable. Indeed they regard the alleged apathy of citizens in modern states as highly desirable social phenomena.

Political leaders are to avoid divisive and emotionally charged issues and make policy and law with little regard for the fickle and diffuse demands made by ordinary citizens. Citizens participate by voting but since they know very little they are not effectively the ruling part of the society. The process of election is usually just a fairly peaceful way of maintaining or changing those who rule (Schumpeter 1942 [1950: 269]).

On Schumpeter’s view, however, citizens do have a role to play in avoiding serious disasters. When politicians act in ways that nearly anyone can see is problematic, the citizens can throw the bums out.

So the elite theory of democracy does seem compatible with some of the instrumentalist arguments given above but it is strongly opposed to the intrinsic arguments from liberty, public justification and equality. To be sure, there can be an elite deliberative democracy wherein elites deliberate, perhaps even out of sight of the population at large, on how to run the society.

A view akin to the elite theory but less pessimistic about citizens’ political agency and competence argues that a well-functioning representative democracy can function as a kind of “defensible epistocracy” (Landa & Pevnick 2020). This view holds that, under the right conditions, elected officials can be expected to exercise political power more responsibly than citizens in a direct democracy because each official is far more likely to cast the deciding vote in legislative assemblies (the “pivotality effect”) and officials have more incentive to exercise power with due regard for the general welfare (the “accountability effect”). Moreover, under the right conditions, representative democracy allows individuals to assess the competence of candidates for office and to select candidates who are best able to help the community pursue its commitments.

One approach that is in part motivated by the problem of democratic citizenship but which attempts to preserve some elements of equality against the elitist criticism is the interest group pluralist account of politics. Robert Dahl’s early statement of the view is very powerful.

In a rough sense, the essence of all competitive politics is bribery of the electorate by politicians… The farmer… supports a candidate committed to high price supports, the businessman…supports an advocate of low corporation taxes… the consumer…votes for candidates opposed to a sales tax. (Dahl 1959: 69)

In this conception of the democratic process, each citizen is a member of an interest group with narrowly defined interests that are closely connected to their everyday lives. On these subjects citizens are supposed to be quite well informed and interested in having an influence. Or at least, elites from each of the interest groups that are relatively close in perspective to the ordinary members are the principal agents in the process. On this account, democracy is not rule by the majority but rather rule by coalitions of minorities. Policy and law in a democratic society are decided by means of bargaining among the different groups.

This approach is conceivably compatible with the more egalitarian approach to democracy. This is because it attempts to reconcile equality with collective decision making by limiting the tasks of citizens to ones which they are able to perform reasonably well. It is not particularly compatible with the deliberative public justification approach because it takes the democratic process to be concerned essentially with bargaining among the different interest groups where the preferences are not subject to further debate in the society as a whole.

A third approach inspired by the problem of participation may be called the neo-liberal approach to politics favored by public choice theorists such as James Buchanan & Gordon Tullock (1962). Against elite theories, they contend that elites and their allies will tend to expand the powers of government and bureaucracy for their own interests and that this expansion will occur at the expense of a largely inattentive public. For this reason, they argue for severe restrictions on the powers of elites. They argue against the interest group pluralist theorists that the problem of participation occurs within interest groups more or less as much as among the citizenry at large. Only powerful economic interests are likely to succeed in organizing to influence the government and they will do so largely for their own benefit. Since economic elites will advance their own interests in politics while spreading the costs to others, policies will tend to be more costly (because imposed on everyone in society) than they are beneficial (because they benefit only the elites in the interest group.)

Neo-liberals infer that one ought to transfer many of the current functions of the state to the market and limit the state to the enforcement of basic property rights and liberties. These can be more easily understood and brought under the control of ordinary citizens.

But the neo-liberal account of democracy must answer to two large worries. First, citizens in modern societies have more ambitious conceptions of social justice and the common good than are realizable by the minimal state. The neo-liberal account thus implies a very serious curtailment of democracy of its own. More evidence is needed to support the contention that these aspirations cannot be achieved by the modern state. Second, the neo-liberal approach ignores the problem of large private concentrations of wealth and power that are capable of pushing small states around for their own benefit and imposing their wills on populations without their consent.

Somin (2013) also argues that government be significantly reduced in size so that citizens have a lesser knowledge burden to carry. But he calls for government decentralization so that citizens can vote with their feet in favor of or against competing units of government, in effect creating a kind of market in governments among which citizens can choose.

4.2.4 The self-interest assumption

A considerable amount of the literature in political science and the economic theory of the state are grounded in the assumption that individuals act primarily and perhaps even exclusively in their self-interest narrowly construed. The problem of participation and the accounts of the democratic process described above are in large part dependent on this assumption. When the preferences of voters are not assumed to be self-interested the calculations of the value of participation change. For example, if a person is a motivated utilitarian, the small chance of making a difference is coupled with a huge accumulated return to many people if there is a significant difference between alternatives. It may be worth it in this case to become reasonably well informed (Parfit 1984: 74). Even more weakly altruistic moral preferences could make a big difference to the rationality of becoming informed, for example if one had a preference to comply with perceived civic duty to vote responsibly (see section 4.3.1 for discussion of the duty to vote). Any moral preference can be formulated in consistent utility functions.

Moreover, defenders of deliberative democracy often claim that concerns for the common good and justice are not merely given prior to politics but that they can evolve and improve through the process of discussion and debate in politics (Elster 1986 [2003]; Gutmann & Thompson 2004; Cohen 1989 [2009]). They assert that much debate and discussion in politics would not be intelligible were it not for the fact that citizens are willing to engage in open minded discussion with those who have distinct morally informed points of view. Empirical evidence suggests that individuals are motivated by moral considerations in politics in addition to their interests (Mansbridge 1990).

Public deliberation in any large-scale democracy will occur within a complex and differentiated “deliberative system”, a

wide variety of institutions, associations, and sites of contestation accomplish political work. (Mansbridge et. al. 2012)

Moreover, the deliberative system of a complex democracy will be characterized by a division of democratic labor , with different parts of the system making different contributions to the overall system. The question arises: what is the appropriate role for a citizen in this division of labor? Philosophically, we should ask two questions. What ought citizens have knowledge about in order to fulfill their role? What standards ought citizens’ beliefs live up to in order to be adequately supported? One promising view is that citizens must think about what ends the society ought to aim at and leave the question of how to achieve those aims to experts (Christiano 1996: ch 5). The rationale for this division of labor is that expertise is not as fundamental to the choice of aims as it is to the development of legislation and policy. Citizens are capable in their everyday lives of understanding and cultivating deep understandings of values and of their interests. And if citizens genuinely do choose the aims and others faithfully pursue the means to achieving those aims, then citizens are in the driver’s seat in society and they can play this role as equals.

To be sure, citizens need to know who to vote for and whether those they vote for are genuinely advancing their aims. This would appear to require some basic knowledge of about how best to achieve their political aims. How is this possible without extensive knowledge? In addition, there is empirical evidence that those who are better informed have more influence on representatives (Erikson 2015). So, if this task requires some kind of knowledge to do well, how can this be compatible with equality?

One promising response is that ordinary citizens do not need individually to have a lot of knowledge of social science and particular facts in order to make political decisions based on such knowledge. Recent research in cognitive science indicates the individuals use “cognitive shortcuts” to save on time in acquiring information about the world they live in (Lupia & McCubbins 1998). This use of shortcuts is common and essential throughout economic and political life. In political life, we see part of the rationale for the many intermediate institutions between government and citizens (Downs 1957: 221–229). Citizens save time by making use of institutions such as the press, unions and other interest group associations, political parties, and opinion leaders to get information about politics. They also rely on interactions in the workplace as well as conversations with friends and families. Political parties can connect ordinary citizens in various ways to expertise because each one contains a division of labor within them that mirrors that in the state. Experts in parties have incentives to make their expertise intelligible to other members (Christiano 2012). In addition, under favorable conditions, political parties stimulate the development of citizens’ normative perspectives and facilitate a healthy public competition of political justifications based on those perspectives (White & Ypi 2016).

People are dependent on social networks in other ways in a democracy. People receive “free” information (which they do not deliberately seek out) about politics and law in school, through their jobs, in discussion with friends, colleagues and family and incidentally through the media. And this can form a better or worse basis on which to pursue other information. Institutions can make a difference to the stream of free information individuals receive. Education can be distributed in a more or less egalitarian way. The circumstances of work can provide more or less free information about politics and law. People who have jobs with a significant amount of power such as lawyers, business persons, government officials will be beneficiaries of very high quality free information. They need to know about law and politics to do their jobs properly. Those who hold low skilled and non-unionized jobs will receive much less free information about politics at work. To the extent that we can alter the economic division of labor by for example giving more place to unions or having greater worker participation, we might be able to reduce inequalities of information among citizens.

4.3 The Moral Duties of Democratic Citizens

What are the moral duties of democratic citizens in complex democracies? In this section, we discuss three important democratic duties: (1) the duty to vote, (2) the duty to promote justice through principled disobedience of the law, and (3) duties to accommodate disagreement through compromise and consensus.

It is often thought that democratic citizens have a moral duty to vote in elections. But this is not obvious. Individual votes are a causally insignificant contribution to the democratic process. In large-scale democracies, the chance that any particular citizen’s vote will decide the outcome of an election is minuscule. What moral reason do democratic citizens have to participate in politics even though they’re almost certain not to make the difference to who gets elected? Why shouldn’t they seek to promote the good or justice in other ways?

Parfit develops an act-utilitarian answer to this question (Parfit 1984: 73–75). Act-utilitarians hold that morally right actions maximize the total expected sum of the utilities of all persons in the society. Parfit argues that voting might nonetheless maximize expected utility if one candidate is significantly superior to the other(s). If we add the benefits to each member of the society of having the superior candidate win, we get a very large difference in value. So when we multiply that value by the probability of casting the deciding vote, which is often thought to be about 1/100,000,000 in a United States presidential election, we might still get a reasonably high expected value. When we subtract the cost to the voter and others of voting, which is often quite low, from this number, we may still have a good reason to vote.

One worry with Parfit’s view is that it faces a version of what Jason Brennan calls “the particularity problem” (Brennan 2011). This is the problem of explaining why citizens ought to promote value through political participation as opposed to through non-political acts. Voting is just one way of promoting overall utility; we need to know the expected utility of the different acts they might perform instead. Even if the argument above is correct, it might be the case that many individuals maximize expected utility by not voting and doing something even more beneficial with their time.

Alex Guerrero argues that citizens have moral reasons to vote because candidates who win by a larger proportion of votes can claim a greater “normative mandate” to govern (Guerrero 2010). Still each individual vote makes only a tiny contribution to the proportion of votes a candidate receives. So, we might doubt the strength of the reason to vote that Guerrero identifies.

Some theorists argue that individuals have a moral duty to vote in order to absolve themselves of complicity in state injustices (Beerbohm 2012; Zakaras 2018). All states commit injustices—they make and enforce unjust laws, wage unjust wars, and much else. And citizens of large-scale democracies have a kind of standing responsibility, by paying taxes and obeying laws, for their state’s injustices of which they must actively absolve themselves The complicity account argues that citizens avoid shared responsibility for their state’s injustices if they oppose those injustices through voting and of public advocacy (Beerbohm 2012).

One worry is that it is unclear why voting and publicly advocating against injustice should be thought to absolve responsibility that is established by paying taxes and obeying laws. Another worry is that one’s concern to oppose injustice should derive from a more direct concern for the wrongs suffered by victims of injustice rather than a concern with keeping one’s hands clean.

One sort of account that avoids this worry grounds the moral duty to vote in the importance of doing one’s fair share of the demands of political justice consistent with public equality. The demands of creating and sustaining just institutions distribute fairly among all citizens (Maskivker 2019). If one fails to do one’s fair share of these demands, then one fails to show due regard for the eventual victims of injustice. Furthermore, voting provides citizens with a mechanism for doing their fair shares of the demands of making their institutions just in a way that is consistent with respecting the public equality of fellow citizens. By showing up and casting a vote, citizens can contribute to the collective achievement of justice while maintaining equal decision-making power with fellow citizens.

Civil disobedience has long been recognized as a central mechanism through which democratic citizens may legitimately promote political justice in their society. According to the standard view, civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law that aims to change laws or government policies. People who engage in civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions in order to show fidelity to the law (Bedau 1961; Rawls 1971: ch. 55). The standard definition of civil disobedience has been subjected to challenge. For example, some argue that the private acts in which the disobedient seeks to evade legal consequences can count as instances of civil disobedience (Raz 1979; Brownlee 2004, 2007, 2012).

Perhaps the most common way of justifying civil disobedience argues that the same considerations that ground the pro tanto duty to obey the law sometimes make it appropriate to engage in civil disobedience of the law (see, e.g., Rawls 1971: ch. 57; Sabl 2001; Markovits 2005; Smith 2011). For example, Rawls argues that while citizens of a “nearly just” society have a pro tanto duty to obey its laws in virtue of it being nearly just, civil disobedience can be justified as a way of making the relevant society more just (Rawls 1971: ch. 57). Similarly, Daniel Markovits argues that members of a society with suitably egalitarian and inclusive democratic procedures have a general duty to obey its laws because they are produced by procedures that are suitably egalitarian and inclusive, but that civil disobedience can be justified as a way of making the relevant procedures more egalitarian or inclusive (Markovits 2005).

It is easy to see why this constitutes an attractive way of justifying civil disobedience, since it justifies it by appeal to the same values that ground the pro tanto duty to obey the law. On the other hand, as Simmons notes, if there is no general duty to obey the law, there would seem to be no presumption in favor of obedience and thus no special need for a justification of civil disobedience; obedience and disobedience would stand equally in need of justification (Simmons 2007: ch 4).

Advocates of the standard approach generally assume that only civil disobedience can be justified in this way. However, some argue civil disobedience does not enjoy a special normative presumption over uncivil disobedience. The core idea that insofar as the values that ground a pro tanto duty to obey the law—for example, justice or democratic equality—are sometimes best served by civil disobedience of the law, they are sometimes best served by covert, evasive, anonymous, or even violent disobedience of the law (Delmas 2018; Lai 2019; Pasternak 2018).

Disagreement about what laws, policies, or principles ought to be implemented is a persistent feature of democratic societies. It is often argued that citizens and officials have duties to moderate their political activity in order to accommodate the competing views of fellow citizens or officials. Two duties of accommodation are widely discussed in the literature: duties of compromise and duties of public justification.

A compromise can be understood as an agreement between parties to advance laws or policies that all regard as suboptimal because they disagree about which laws or policies are optimal (May 2005). While it is widely accepted that there are sometimes compelling instrumental reasons to compromise, whether there are intrinsic moral reasons to compromise is more controversial. Some defend intrinsic reasons to compromise based on democratic values like inclusion, mutual respect, and reciprocity (Gutmann and Thompson 2014; Wendt 2016; Weinstock 2013). However, Simon May argues that such arguments fail and that all reasons to compromise are pragmatic (May 2005).

Advocates of the public justification approach to democracy (see section 2.2.2 ) often argue that democratic citizens and officials have individual moral duties of public justification. John Rawls argues for a “duty of civility” that requires citizens and officials to be prepared to give mutually acceptable justifications for important laws when voting and engaged in public advocacy. Given the inevitability of disagreement about comprehensive moral and philosophical truth in free democracies, the duty of civility requires citizens to appeal to a reasonable “political” conception of justice that can be the object of an “overlapping consensus” between different comprehensive doctrines. While different theorists motivate duties of public justification in different ways, many appeal to the need for exercises of coercive political authority to respect citizens’ freedom and equality.

5. Democratic Representation

Representation is an essential part of the division of labor of large-scale democracies. In this section, we examine two moral questions concerning representation. First, what sort of representative system is best? Second, by what moral principles are representatives bound?

A number of debates have centered on the question of what kinds of representative systems are best for a democratic society. What choice we make here will depend heavily on our underlying moral justification of democracy, our conception of citizenship as well as on our empirical understanding of political institutions and how they function. The most basic types of formal political representation available are single member district representation, proportional representation and group representation. In addition, many societies have opted for multicameral legislative institutions. In some cases, combinations of the above forms have been tried.

Single member district representation returns single representatives of geographically defined areas containing roughly equal populations to the legislature and is prominent in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, among other places. The most common form of proportional representation is party list proportional representation. In a simple form of such a scheme, a number of parties compete for election to a legislature that is not divided into geographical districts. Parties acquire seats in the legislature as a proportion of the total number of votes they receive in the voting population as a whole. Group representation occurs when the society is divided into non-geographically defined groups such as ethnic or linguistic groups or even functional groups such as workers, farmers and capitalists and returns representatives to a legislature from each of them.

Many have argued in favor of single member district legislation on the grounds that it has appeared to them to lead to more stable government than other forms of representation. The thought is that proportional representation tends to fragment the citizenry into opposing homogeneous camps that rigidly adhere to their party lines and that are continually vying for control over the government. Since there are many parties and they are unwilling to compromise with each other, governments formed from coalitions of parties tend to fall apart rather quickly. The post war experience of governments in Italy appears to confirm this hypothesis. Single member district representation, in contrast, is said to enhance the stability of governments by virtue of its favoring a two party system of government. Each election cycle then determines which party is to stay in power for some length of time.

Charles Beitz argues that single member district representation encourages moderation in party programs offered for citizens to consider (Beitz 1989: ch. 7). This results from the tendency of this kind of representation towards two party systems. In a two party system with majority rule, it is argued, each party must appeal to the median voter in the political spectrum. Hence, they must moderate their programs to appeal to the median voter. Furthermore, they encourage compromise among groups since they must try to appeal to a lot of other groups in order to become part of one of the two leading parties. These tendencies encourage moderation and compromise in citizens to the extent that political parties, and interest groups, hold these qualities up as necessary to functioning well in a democracy.

In criticism, advocates of proportional and group representation have argued that single member district representation tends to muffle the voices and ignore the interests of minority groups in the society (Mill 1861; Christiano 1996). Minority interests and views tend to be articulated in background negotiations and in ways that muffle their distinctiveness. Furthermore, representatives of minority interests and views often have a difficult time getting elected at all in single member district systems so it has been charged that minority views and interests are often systematically underrepresented. Sometimes these problems are dealt with by redrawing the boundaries of districts in a way that ensures greater minority representation. The efforts are invariably quite controversial since there is considerable disagreement about the criteria for apportionment.

In proportional representation, by contrast, representatives of different groups are seated in the legislature in proportion to citizens’ choices. Minorities need not make their demands conform to the basic dichotomy of views and interests that characterize single member district systems so their views are more articulated and distinctive as well as better represented.

Advocates of group representation, like Iris Marion Young, have argued that some historically disenfranchised groups may still not do very well under proportional representation (Young 1990: ch. 6). They may not be able to organize and articulate their views as easily as other groups. Also, minority groups can still be systematically defeated in the legislature and their interests may be consistently set back even if they do have some representation. For these groups, some have argued that the only way to protect their interests is legally to ensure that they have adequate and even disproportionate representation.

One worry about group representation is that it tends to freeze some aspects of the agenda that might be better left to the choice of citizens. For instance, consider a population that is divided into linguistic groups for a long time. And suppose that only some citizens continue to think of linguistic conflict as important. In the circumstances a group representation scheme may tend to be biased in an arbitrary way that favors the views or interests of those who do think of linguistic conflict as important.

What moral norms apply to representatives carrying out their official duties? We can get a better handle on possible answers by introducing Hannah Pitkin’s famous distinction between trustees and delegates (Pitkin 1967). Representatives who act as trustees rely on their own independent judgments in carrying out their duties. Norms of trusteeship are supported in recognition that, given a natural division of democratic labor, officials are in a much better position to make well-reasoned and well-informed political decisions than ordinary citizens.

Representatives who act as delegates defer to the judgments of their citizens. These norms might be thought to reflect the value of democratic accountability. Because the people authorize representatives to govern, it is natural to think that representatives are accountable to the people to enact their judgments. If representatives are not accountable in this way, citizens lose democratic control over their representatives’ actions.

Which norms should win out when they conflict? Pitkin argues that the answer varies by context. This seems plausible. For example, if we take the view that citizens primarily have the role of determining the aims of the society, we might think that representatives ought to be delegates with regard to the aims, but trustees with regard to the ways of realizing the aims (Christiano 1996). See Suzanne Dovi’s discussion of representation for a deeper and more nuanced discussion of these issues.

Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem is thought by some to provide a major set of difficulties for democratic theory (Arrow 1951). William Riker, Russell Hardin, and others have thought that the impossibility theorem shows that there are deep problems with democratic ideals (Riker 1982; Hardin 1999). Neither of these thinkers are opposed to democracy itself, they both think that there are good instrumental reasons for having democracy.

The basic results of social choice theory are laid out in detail elsewhere in the encyclopedia (List 2013). Here we will simply articulate the basic result and an illustration. The question of Arrowian social choice theory is: how do we determine a social preference for a society overall on the basis of the set of the individual preferences of the members? Arrow shows that a social choice function that satisfies a number of plausible constraints cannot be defined when there are three or more alternatives to be chosen by the group. He lays out a number of conditions to be imposed on a social choice function. Unlimited domain : The social choice function must be able to give us a social preference no matter what the preferences of the individuals over alternatives are. Non dictatorship : the social choice function must not select the preference of one particular member regardless of others’ preferences. Transitivity and completeness : The individual preferences orderings must be transitive and complete orderings and the social preference derived from them must be transitive and complete. Independence of irrelevant alternatives : the social preference between two alternatives must be the result only of the individual orderings between those two alternatives. Pareto condition : if all the members prefer an alternative x over y , then x must be ranked above y in the social preference. The theorem says that no social choice function over more than two alternatives can satisfy all of these conditions.

A useful illustration of this idea involves an extension of majority rule to cases of more than two alternatives. The Condorcet rule says that an alternative x wins when, for every other alternative, a majority prefers x over that alternative. For example, suppose we have three persons A , B and C and three alternatives x , y and z . A prefers x over y , y over z ; B prefers y over z and z over x ; C prefers x over z and z over y . In this case, x is the Condorcet winner since it beats y , and it beats z . The problem with this plausible sounding rule is the case of a majority cycle. Suppose you have three persons A , B and C , and three alternatives, x , y and z . In the case in which A prefers x over y and y over z , while B prefers y over z and z over x , and C prefers z over x and x over y , the Condorcet rule will yield a social preference of x over y , y over z and z over x . One can see here that the Condorcet rule satisfies all the conditions except transitivity of social preference. One way to avoid intransitivity is to restrict the domain of preferences from which the social preference arises. Another is to introduce cardinal information that compares the how much people prefer alternatives (violating independence). Another might be to make one person a dictator. So, this case nicely illustrates that one cannot satisfy all of the constraints simultaneously.

Riker argues that the theorem shows that the idea that the popular will can be the governing element in a society is false. If an existence condition for a popular will is a restricted set of preferences the question naturally arises as to whether such a condition is always or normally met in a moderately complex society. We might wonder whether a highly pluralistic society with a very complex division of labor is likely to satisfy the restricted preference set condition necessary to avoid cycles or other pathologies of social choice. Some have argued that we have empirical evidence to the effect that modern societies do normally satisfy such conditions (Mackie 2003). Others have argued that this seems unlikely (Riker 1982; Ingham 2019). This is not merely a defense of unlimited domain. It is a defense of the thesis that normally the collections of preferences in modern societies are not likely to have the properties that enable them to avoid cycles.

The fairness critique from social choice theory is based on the idea that when a voting process meets requirements of fairness, the fairness of the process and the preferences may not generate determinate outcomes. If cycles are pervasive, the outcomes of democratic processes may be determined by clever strategies and not by the fairness of the procedures (Riker 1982). Three remarks are in order here. First, it is compatible with the process being completely fair that the outcomes of the process are indeterminate. After all, coin flips are fair. Second, there is some question as to how prominent the cycles are. Third, one might think that if the conditions which enable opposing sides to strategize effectively are themselves roughly equal, then the concerns for fairness are fully met. If resources for persuasion and organization are distributed in an egalitarian way, perhaps the fairness account is vindicated after all. This point can be made more compelling when we consider Sean Ingham’s account of political equality. He includes intensity of preference in his account of fairness. This is a departure from the Arrowian approach, but it is in many ways a realistic one. The idea is that majorities have equal control over policy areas when they are able to get what they want with the same amount of intensity of preferences. And equality holds generally when all groups of the same size have the same control (Ingham 2019). There remains an extreme case in which all majorities have equal intensity of preference and are caught in a majority cycle. But the chances of this happening are very slim, even if the chances of majority cycles more generally are not as small. Even if there are a lot of majority cycles, if the issues are resolved in such a way that those majorities that have most at stake in the conflict are the ones that get their way, then we can have fairness in a quite robust sense even while having pervasive majority cycles.

If democratic societies allow members to participate as equals in collective decision making, a natural question arises: who has the right to participate in making collective decisions? We can ask this question within a particular jurisdiction (ought all adults have the right to participation? Ought children have the right to participation? Ought all residents have such rights?). But we can also ask what the extent of the jurisdiction ought to be. How many of the people in the world ought to be included in the collective decision-making? An easy, though slightly misleading, way of asking this question is, what ought the physical boundaries of a particular institution of collective decision-making be? We see partially democratic societies within the confines of the modern nation-state. But we might ask, why should we restrict the set of persons who participate in making decisions of the modern state just to those who happen to be the physical inhabitants of those states? Surely there are many other persons affected by decisions made by democratic states aside from those persons. For example, activities in one society A can pollute another society B . Why shouldn’t the members of B have a say in the decisions regarding the polluting activities in A ? And there can be many other effects that activities in A can have on B .

Some have suggested that the boundaries of a state ought to be determined through a principle of national self-determination. We identify a nation as an ongoing group of persons who share certain cultural, historical and political norms and who identify with each other and with a piece of land. Then we determine the boundaries of the territory by appeal to the size of the group of people and the land they cherish (Miller 1995; Song 2012). This is an appealing idea in many ways: shared nationality breeds a willingness to share the sacrifices that arise from collective decision making; it generates a sense of at-homeness for people. But it is hard to use as a general principle for dividing land among persons when one of the central facts for many societies is that a diversity of nations, ethnic groups and cultures co-mingle on the very same land.

Is there a democratic solution to the boundary problem? A number of ideas have been suggested. The first idea is that the people ought to decide what the boundaries are. But this suggestion, while it may be a pragmatic resolution to the problem, seems to beg the question about who the members are and who are not (Whelan 1983).

A second theoretical solution that has some democratic credentials is to invoke the principle that all who are subjected to decision making, in the sense of who are coerced or have duties imposed upon them, ought to have a say in the decision making (Abizadeh 2008). This principle is plausible enough, but it doesn’t get at enough cases. The pollution case above is not a case of subjection.

A third proposed theoretical solution is the all-affected principle. One formulation is “all affected persons ought to have a say in the decisions that affect them”. This does suggest that when the activities in one state affect those of another state, the people of the other state ought to have a say in those activities. Some have thought that this principle tends to lead to a kind of politically cosmopolitan principle in support of world government (Goodin 2007).

But the all-affected principle is conceptually quite uncertain and morally deeply problematic, and it provides very little, if anything, in the way of a solution to the boundary problem.

First, “having a say” is not clear. Does it require having a vote in collective decision-making? Or is it also satisfied by a person’s being able to modify another’s action by negotiating with them, as we see when there is bargaining over an externality? This latter version would undermine the idea that the all-affected principle has direct implications for the boundary problem. When the United States permits activities that produce acid rain in Canada, Canada can negotiate with the United States to lessen the production of acid rain and/or to compensate Canada for the harm. As long as there is a fair and effective system of negotiation, this would seem to satisfy the all-affected principle without giving Canadians a vote in American politics or Americans a vote in Canadian politics.

Second, it is not clear what “being affected” means. One, does a person being affected just mean that there is a change in the person’s situation or must the effect involve the setting back of one’s preferences, or interests, or legitimate interests, or exercise of one’s capacities or one’s good? Two, are one’s interests affected by a decision only when they are advanced or set back relative to some baseline (either the present state of affairs or some morally defined baseline like what you have promised me), or am I affected by decisions that could be to my advantage or disadvantage but end up making no difference? For example, if I am drowning in a pool and you are deciding whether to save me or go buy yourself a candy bar, am I affected by your buying the candy bar? If I am not affected when no change occurs, then who is affected by a decision often depends on who participates in the decision and we have no solution to the problem of inclusion. If I am affected, then the principle has some quite extraordinary implications. Now it turns out that impoverished persons in South Asia are affected by my buying a candy bar, since I could have sent the money to them (Goodin 2007).

The all-affected principle is a merely suggestive and rhetorically effective phrase. It is a conversation starter and a list of topics to be discussed, not a genuine principle. For example, if I must include everyone possibly affected by my decision for every decision I make, I will not be able to make many decisions and my decision making will no longer enable me to give a shape to my own life and my relations with others. My life becomes fragmented and lacks integrity (Williams 1973). An analog of this problem would arise for political societies, presumably. Each society would have to include a variety of different persons in each decision. It is hard to see how any society could take on any particular character if this is the case.

A more plausible principle that encompasses some of the suggestions of the all-affected principle is that a framework of institutions should be set up so that people have power to advance and protect their legitimate interests in life.

But if we understand the principle in this way, it is not clear that it helps us much with the boundary problem. First of all, there are different ways in which people can be said to possess power over their lives. One kind of power is the power to participate as an equal in a collective decision-making process. Another kind is to be able to advance one’s interests in a decentralized process like a market or a system of agreement making like international law. Recalling our pollution problem above, we could give the state of which they are members power to negotiate with the polluting state terms that are mutually agreeable. Only the power to participate as an equal in collective decision-making involves the boundaries of collective decision-making.

Another solution to the boundary problem is a conservative one. The basic idea is to keep the boundaries of states roughly as they are except if there is a pressing need to change them. Trying to alter the boundaries of political societies is a recipe for serious conflict because there is no institution that has the legitimacy or power actually to resolve problems at an international level and there is likely to be a lot of disagreement on how to do it. States as we know them, are by far the most powerful political entities in the international system. They have developed more effective practices of accountability of power than any other entity in the system. They have created unified societies with highly interdependent populations. Finally, states and the individuals in them can be made accountable to some degree to other individuals and states through the process of negotiation and international law making. The origin of these boundaries may be arbitrary, but it is not, for all that, irrelevant. To be sure, there are clear cases where borders can be changed. One source of pressing need is serious injustice within a country. Another might be the existence of permanent minorities that are sectionally defined. Here, we ask only how to revise boundaries and the basis of such revision is that it is a remedy for serious injustice (Buchanan 1991).

• Abizadeh, Arash, 2008, “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders”, Political Theory , 36(1): 37–65. doi:10.1177/0090591707310090
• Acemoglu, Daron, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson, 2019, “Democracy Does Cause Growth”, Journal of Political Economy , 127(1): 47–100. doi:10.1086/700936
• Achen, Christopher H. and Larry M. Bartels, 2016, Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Studies in Political Behavior), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Altman, Andrew and Christopher Heath Wellman, 2009, A Liberal Theory of International Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564415.001.0001
• Anderson, Elizabeth, 2006, “The Epistemology of Democracy”, Episteme , 3(1–2): 8–22. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8
• Aristotle, Politics: Writings from the Complete Works , Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.
• Arneson, Richard J., 1993 [2003], “Democratic Rights at National and Workplace Levels”, in The Idea of Democracy , David Copp, Jean Hampton, and John Roember, 118–138, 143–147; reprinted as “Democracy at the National Level” in Christiano 2003: 95–115.
• –––, 2003, “Defending the Purely Instrumental Account of Democratic Legitimacy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 11(1): 122–132. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00170
• –––, 2004, “Democracy Is Not Intrinsically Just”, in Justice and Democracy , Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, and Carole Pateman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–58. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490217.003
• –––, 2009, “The Supposed Right to a Democratic Say”, in Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy , Thomas Christiano and John Christman (eds.), Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 195–212. doi:10.1002/9781444310399.ch11
• Arrow, Kenneth J., 1951, Social Choice and Individual Values , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Austen-Smith, David, 1992, “Strategic Models of Talk in Political Decision Making”, International Political Science Review , 13(1): 45–58. doi:10.1177/019251219201300104
• Austen-Smith, David and Jeffrey S. Banks, 1996, “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem”, American Political Science Review , 90(1): 34–45. doi:10.2307/2082796
• Bajaj, Sameer, 2014, “Review of Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , by Hélène Landemore”, Ethics , 124(2): 426–431. doi:10.1086/673507
• Barry, Brian, 1965, Political Argument , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Bartels, Larry M., 2002, “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions”, Political Behavior , 24(2): 117–150. doi:10.1023/A:1021226224601
• Bedau, Hugo A., 1961, “On Civil Disobedience”, Journal of Philosophy , 58(21): 653–665. doi:10.2307/2023542
• Beerbohm, Eric Anthony, 2012, In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Beitz, Charles R., 1989, Political Equality: An Essay on Democratic Theory , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Black, Duncan, 1963, The Theory of Committees and Elections , second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brennan, Jason, 2011, The Ethics of Voting , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2014, “How Smart Is Democracy? You Can’t Answer That Question a Priori”, Critical Review , 26(1–2): 33–58. doi:10.1080/08913811.2014.907040
• –––, 2016, Against Democracy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Brownlee, Kimberley, 2004, “Features of a Paradigm Case of Civil Disobedience”, Res Publica , 10(4): 337–351. doi:10.1007/s11158-004-2326-6
• –––, 2007, “The Communicative Aspects of Civil Disobedience and Lawful Punishment”, Criminal Law and Philosophy , 1(2): 179–192. doi:10.1007/s11572-006-9015-9
• –––, 2012, Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592944.001.0001
• Buchanan, Allen, 1991, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania to Quebec , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Buchanan, James and Gordon Tullock, 1962, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy , Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Caplan, Bryan, 2007, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cassese, Antonio, 1995, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Christiano, Thomas, 1996, The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• ––– (ed.), 2003, Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2004, “The Authority of Democracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 12(3): 266–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00200.x
• –––, 2006, “A Democratic Theory of Territory and Some Puzzles about Global Democracy”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 37(1): 81–107. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2006.00304.x
• –––, 2008, The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and Its Limits , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198297475.001.0001
• –––, 2009, “Must Democracy Be Reasonable?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 39(1): 1–34. doi:10.1353/cjp.0.0037
• –––, 2011, “An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy: An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 39(2): 142–176. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01204.x
• –––, 2012, “Rational Deliberation among Experts and Citizens”, in Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012: 27–51. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139178914.003
• –––, 2015, “Self-Determination and the Human Right to Democracy”, in Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 459–480. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0026
• Cohen, Joshua, 1986, “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy”, Ethics , 97(1): 26–38. doi:10.1086/292815
• –––, 1989 [2009], “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”, in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State , Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit (eds.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 17–34; reprinted in Philosophy, Politics, Democracy: Selected Essays , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 16–37.
• –––, 1996 [2003], “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy”, in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political , Seyla Benhabib (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 95–119; reprinted in Christiano 2003: 17–38.
• Condorcet, Marquis de, 1785, Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues àla pluralité des voix , Paris; reprinted Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139923972
• Dahl, Robert A., 1959, A Preface to Democratic Theory , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Delmas, Candice, 2018, A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190872199.001.0001
• Dewey, John, 1927 [2012], The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt; reprinted, Melvin L. Rogers (ed.), University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.
• Downs, Anthony, 1957, An Economic Theory of Democracy , New York: Harper and Row.
• Doyle, Michael W., 2011, Liberal Peace: Selected Essays , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203804933
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1996, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2000, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Elster, Jon, 1986 [2003], “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory”, in Foundations of Scoial Choice Theory , Jon Elster and Aanund Hyllund (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103–132; reprinted in Christiano 2003: 138–158.
• Ely, John Hart, 1980, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Erikson, Robert S., 2015, “Income Inequality and Policy Responsiveness “, Annual Review of Political Science , 18: 11–29. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094706
• Estlund, David, 1997a [2003], “Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority”, in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , James Bohman and William Rehg (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 173–204; reprinted in Christiano 2003: 69–91.
• –––, 1997b, “The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority”:, The Modern Schoolman , 74(4): 259–276. doi:10.5840/schoolman199774424
• –––, 2003, “Why Not Epistocracy”, in Desire, Identity, and Existence: Essays in Honor of T.M. Penner , Naomi Reshotko (ed.), Kelowna, BC: Academic Printing and Publishing, 53–69.
• –––, 2006, “Democracy and the Real Speech Situation”, in Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents , Samantha Besson and José Luis Martí (eds.), London: Routledge, 75–92.
• –––, 2008, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Estlund, David M., Jeremy Waldron, Bernard Grofman, and Scott L. Feld, 1989, “Democratic Theory and the Public Interest: Condorcet and Rousseau Revisited”, American Political Science Review , 83(4): 1317–1340. doi:10.2307/1961672
• Farber, Henry S. and Joanne Gowa, 1995, “Polities and Peace”, International Security , 20(2): 123–146. doi:10.2307/2539231
• Forst, Rainer, 2016, “The Justification of Basic Rights: A Discourse-Theoretical Approach”, Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy , 45(3): 7–28. doi:10.5553/NJLP/221307132016045003002
• Gartzke, Erik, 2007, “The Capitalist Peace”, American Journal of Political Science , 51(1): 166–91.
• Gaus, Gerald F., 1996, Justificatory Liberalism: An Essay on Epistemology and Political Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2011, The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511780844
• Goodin, Robert E., 2003, Reflective Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199256179.001.0001
• –––, 2007, “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 35(1): 40–68. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00098.x
• Goodin, Robert E. and Kai Spiekermann, 2019, An Epistemic Theory of Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823452.001.0001
• Gould, Carol C., 1988, Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economics and Society , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Grofman, Bernard and Scott L. Feld, 1988, “Rousseau’s General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective”, American Political Science Review , 82(2): 567–576. doi:10.2307/1957401
• Guerrero, Alexander A., 2010, “The Paradox of Voting and the Ethics of Political Representation”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 38(3): 272–306. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2010.01188.x
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2004, Why Deliberative Democracy? , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2014, The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diksurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
• Hannon, Michael, 2020, “Empathetic Understanding and Deliberative Democracy”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 101(3): 591–611. doi:10.1111/phpr.12624
• Hardin, Russell, 1999, Liberalism, Constitutionalism, and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198290845.001.0001
• Hayek, Friedrich A., 1960, The Constitution of Liberty , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Hobbes, Thomas, 1651, Leviathan , London; reprinted, C.B. MacPherson (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968.
• Hong, Lu and Scott E. Page, 2004, “Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 101(46): 16385–16389. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101
• Hume, David, 1748, “Of the Original Contract”; reprinted in Hume’s Ethical Writings: Selections from David Hume , Alasdair MacIntyre (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965.
• Ingham, Sean, 2019, Rule by Multiple Majorities: A New Theory of Popular Control , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108683821
• Kahan, Dan M., 2013, “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(4): 407–424
• Kant, Immanuel, 1795, Zum ewigen Frieden: Ein philosophischer Entwurf , Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius. Translated as “Toward Perpetual Peace” in Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy , Mary J. Gregor (trans./ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 311–352.
• Knight, Jack and James Johnson, 2011, The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Kolodny, Niko, 2014a, “Rule Over None I: What Justifies Democracy?”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 42(3): 195–229. doi:10.1111/papa.12035
• –––, 2014b, “Rule Over None II: Social Equality and the Justification of Democracy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 42(4): 287–336. doi:10.1111/papa.12037
• Ladha, Krishna K., 1992, “The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech, and Correlated Votes”, American Journal of Political Science , 36(3): 617–634. doi:10.2307/2111584
• Lai, Ten-Herng., 2019, “Justifying Uncivil Disobedience”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 5 , David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 90–114. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841425.003.0004
• Landa, Dimitri and Ryan Pevnick, 2020, “Representative Democracy as Defensible Epistocracy”, American Political Science Review , 114(1): 1–13. doi:10.1017/S0003055419000509
• Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Layne, Christopher, 1994, “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace”, International Security , 19(2): 5–49. doi:10.2307/2539195
• Levy, Jack S. and William R. Thompson, 2010, Causes of War , Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.
• List, Christian, 2013, “Social Choice Theory”, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/social-choice/ >
• List, Christian and Robert E. Goodin, 2001, “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 9(3): 277–306. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00128
• Locke, John, 1690, Second Treatise on Civil Government , London; reprinted C.B. MacPherson (ed.), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1980.
• Lord, Charles G., Lee Ross, and Mark R. Lepper, 1979, “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37(11): 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
• Lupia Arthur and Matthew D. McCubbins, 1998, The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need To Know? , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mackie, Gerry, 2003, Democracy Defended , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490293
• Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, 1787–1788, The Federalist Papers , New York; reprinted Isaac Kramnick (ed.), Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1987. [ Federalist Papers available online ]
• Mansbridge, Jane J. (ed.), 1990, Beyond Self-Interest , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis F. Thompson, and Mark E. Warren, 2012, “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy”, in Parkinson and Mansbridge2003: 1–26. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139178914.002
• Markovits, Daniel, 2005, “Democratic Disobedience”, Yale Law Journal , 114(8): 1897–1952.
• Maskivker, Julia, 2019, The Duty to Vote , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190066062.001.0001
• May, Simon Cabulea, 2005, “Principled Compromise and the Abortion Controversy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 33(4): 317–348. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00035.x
• Mill, John Stuart, 1861 [1991], Considerations on Representative Government , London: Parker, Son, and Bourn; reprinted Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991.
• Miller, David, 1995, On Nationality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• Page, Scott E., 2007, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Parfit, Derek, 1984, Reasons and Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019824908X.001.0001
• Parkinson, John and Jane Mansbridge (eds.), 2012, Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139178914
• Pasternak, Avia, 2018, “Political Rioting: A Moral Assessment”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 46(4): 384–418. doi:10.1111/papa.12132
• Peter, Fabienne, 2008, “Pure Epistemic Proceduralism”, Episteme , 5(1): 33–55. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000221
• –––, 2009, Democratic Legitimacy , New York: Routledge.
• Pevnick, Ryan, 2020, “The Failure of Instrumental Arguments for a Human Right to Democracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 28(1): 27–50. doi:10.1111/jopp.12197
• Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, 1967, The Concept of Representation , Berkeley, CA: University of California.
• Plato, The Republic , revised/trans. by Lee, D., Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1974, 2 nd edition.
• Quirk, Paul J., 2014, “Making It up on Volume: Are Larger Groups Really Smarter?”, Critical Review , 26(1–2): 129–150. doi:10.1080/08913811.2014.907046
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2005, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press, expanded edition.
• Ray, James Lee, 1995, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition , Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
• Raz, Joseph, 1979, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Riker, William H., 1982, Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice , San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
• Rosenblum, Nancy L., 2008, On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Rousseau, David L., Christopher Gelpi, Dan Reiter, and Paul K. Huth, 1996, “Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88”, American Political Science Review , 90(3): 512–533. doi:10.2307/2082606
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Du contrat social; ou Principes du droit politique , Amsterdam. Translated as The Social Contract , Charles Frankel (trans.), New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1947.
• Russett, Bruce M., 1993, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post–Cold War World , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Russett, Bruce M. and Harvey Starr, 2003, “From Democratic Peace to Kantian Peace: Democracy and Conflict in the International System”, in Handbook of War Studies II , Manus I. Midlarsky (ed.), Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 93–128.
• Sabl, Andrew, 2001, “Looking Forward to Justice: Rawlsian Civil Disobedience and Its Non-Rawlsian Lessons”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 9(3): 307–330. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00129
• Scheffler, Samuel, 2010, Equality and Tradition: Questions of Value in Moral and Political Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1942 [1950], Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , New York: Harper and Row; second edition 1947; third edition 1950.
• Sen, Amartya, 1999, Development as Freedom , New York: Knopf.
• Simmons, A. John, 2001, Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511625152
• –––, 2007, Political Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Singer, Peter, 1973, Democracy and Disobedience , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Smith, William, 2011, “Civil Disobedience and the Public Sphere”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 19(2): 145–166. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00365.x
• Somin, Ilya, 2013, Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Song, Sarah, 2012, “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should Be Bounded by the State”, International Theory , 4(1): 39–68. doi:10.1017/S1752971911000248
• Stilz, Anna, 2009, Liberal Loyalty: Freedom, Obligation, and the State , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2016, “The Value of Self-Determination”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 2 , David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 8. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759621.003.0005
• Thompson, Abigail, 2014, “Does Diversity Trump Ability?” Notices of the AMS , 61(9): 1024–1030. [ Thompson 2014 available online ]
• Valentini, Laura, 2013, “Justice, Disagreement and Democracy”, British Journal of Political Science , 43(1): 177–199. doi:10.1017/S0007123412000294
• Viehoff, Daniel, 2014, “Democratic Equality and Political Authority”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 42(4): 337–375. doi:10.1111/papa.12036
• Waldron, Jeremy, 1995, “The Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle’s Politics ”, Political Theory , 23(4): 563–584. doi:10.1177/0090591795023004001
• –––, 1999, Law and Disagreement , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Wall, Steven, 2007, “Democracy and Equality”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 57(228): 416–438. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.495.x
• Weart, Spencer R., 1998, Never at War: Why Democracies Will Never Fight One Another , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Wendt, Fabian, 2016, Compromise, Peace and Public Justification: Political Morality Beyond Justice , London: Palgrave Macmillon. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28877-2
• Weinstock, Daniel, 2013, “On the Possibility of Principled Moral Compromise”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 16(4): 537–556. doi:10.1080/13698230.2013.810392
• Whelan, Frederick G., 1983, “Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem”, Nomos 25: Liberal Democracy , J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.), American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, 13–47.
• White, Jonathan and Lea Ypi, 2016, The Meaning of Partisanship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684175.001.0001
• Williams, B., 1973, “A Critique of Utilitarianism”, in Utilitarianism: For and Against , with J.J.C. Smart, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wolff, Robert Paul, 1970, In Defense of Anarchism , New York, NY: Harper and Row.
• Wright, Gavin, 2013, Sharing the Prize: The Economics of the Civil Rights Revolution in the American South , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Young, Iris Marion, 1990, Justice and the Politics of Difference , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Zakaras, Alex, 2018, “Complicity and Coercion: Toward and Ethics of Political Participation”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 4), David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 8.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• [Please contact the author with suggestions]

authority | citizenship | civil disobedience | constitutionalism | egalitarianism | equality | Hobbes, Thomas | justice | justification, political: public | legitimacy, political | liberty: positive and negative | Locke, John | Mill, John Stuart | Plato | -->pluralism --> | political obligation | publicity | public reason | Rawls, John | representation, political | rights | Rousseau, Jean Jacques | rule of law and procedural fairness | voting

Copyright © 2022 by Tom Christiano < thomasc @ u . arizona . edu > Sameer Bajaj < sameer . bajaj1 @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Democracy Arguments For and Against Essay

Introduction, arguments for democracy, arguments against democracy, works cited.

Contrary to other ideas in political science such as justice and liberty, democracy is a term that can be easily explained. It mainly relates to the government by the majority. Although characterizing democracy is not difficult, the latest political theory is often left this out. No strong argument is provided by political theorists regarding the reason for representative democracy.

On the other hand, if any is given, it lacks strength. One would anticipate that great literature can be created from the reasons for the promotion and institution of democracy. On the contrary, popular literature does not delve so much into why democracy is desirable, but instead, get to explain the reasons for the improvement of the current democracy. This essay examines what different philosophers have had to argue both for and against democracy.

One of the arguments is that democracy is important because it can be embraced and made deliberative. This implies that deliberation of a dialogical nature is vital to the democratic society. When democracy is made deliberate in a given society, instead of people’s mere adaptation to circumstance, their preferences are not only informed but also made clear.

Democracy also helps to remove points of difference among people without necessarily making them agree. At times, democracy requires that people be compelled to embrace a general perspective. As such, both their imagination and empathy are stretched. In the same vein of the deliberateness of democracy, selfish concerns can be separated from public-oriented considerations thus encouraging public reasoning for participants who are free and equal (Sosa & Villanueva 287-288).

Research also indicates that making democratic to be more deliberative is likely to result to other benefits such as legitimizing all decisions that are arrived at, encouraging the powerless to voice their concerns in decision making, promoting transparency among group members and enhancing outcomes that are just.

Another argument that favors the importance of democracy in deliberation is one that aims at making deliberation democratic and not vice versa. This implies that whenever there is democratic deliberation, then the probability of reaching the truth based on reliability increases with the presence of a democratic decision-making regime.

Moreover, democracy enhances the proper allocation of resources to appropriate uses. This argument is supported by the fact dictatorial leaders are not fully accountable to citizens and do not have motivations to put the total output into maximum use. Instead, they focus on their selfish ends.

Consequently, democracy ensures that property rights are protected hence allowing investors to have a long term perspective. Besides, allowing free flow of information ensures that the quality of economic decisions made is high (Dahl 448).

In attempting to argue against democracy, Gordon takes on several philosophers who have argued in favor of democracy. He does this by revealing how such arguments fail to hold water when based on democracy because, in his perspective, the proponents of democracy do not express the desirability of democracy as it were. A good example of writers who have omitted this fact is Bernard Barber.

He dismisses other philosophers on this matter arguing that a just political order can only be reached at through a discussion and not by avoiding it. Questions of distributive justice can properly be dealt with by individuals rather than by philosophers alone since it would be undemocratic to do the reverse. However, Barber does not clearly explain why people should value democracy.

His concern is that individuals thinking on their own can reach wiser decisions than a group of individuals discussing the same issue. He’s satisfied with the fact that Rousseau concurs with the issue. If he were to be correct about this empirical matter, then it would be sound to conclude that if democratic governance would guide a society, then it would be prudent to arrive at decisions in such a society through discussions.

Although this point is still devoid of the desirability of democracy, it centers on the importance of democracy in discussing policy publicly. Deliberating on issues publicly is not a compulsory ingredient for democracy. For instance, during the nineteenth century, there was no democracy in the British government although public issues could be discussed broadly (Gordon para.5).

Plato presents a couple of arguments against democracy. First, Plato describes democracies as societies that are anarchic. He believes that societies that are democratic are marked with anarchy. For example, his attack describes governments that are democratic for being libertarian in such a manner every citizen can carry out their life issues in a way that appeals to them.

In this way, he asserts that people mistake anarchy for freedom. Plato criticizes democratic societies again by asserting that since they are characterized with anarchy, they are devoid of unity. They are not united on two fronts. First, due to the lack of political structure and are not politically organized. Second, democratic societies do not have a leadership structure since everyone can speak on political issues.

Second, Plato argues that democratic societies are likely to adhere to what their citizens want hence lacking any concern for the good of all. If anarchy is what features in democracies, then every individual has the freedom to choose what will ultimately benefit him or her. These choices may clash and encourage people to value their own needs rather those of others as well.

This is a clear pursuit of personal desires which may encourage loss of the common good. Since citizens have no idea of what ruling is, it happens that they pursue their passions and not the reason because reason cannot be applied in such pursuits. Any leaders that are elected through democracy are therefore servants who are out to satisfy the individual desires and appetites of the citizens.

Plato further argues that citizens who are guided by democracy are likened to individuals who grope in darkness since they do not have what it takes to execute governance (Kofmel 20). Moreover, Plato lists two more difficulties. First, numerous individuals falsely believe that they have adequate political proficiency that can qualify them to take part in political issues.

Citizens are not bothered by the fact that on account of their political standing, they are entitled to an equal political voice with each other. Second, when people get involved in a philosophical investigation with each other, they are more concerned with winning arguments instead of the following truth.

Therefore, even though citizens may be endowed with enough political expertise, it may be concluded that they will not be able to manage it effectively (Kofmel 21). The best remedy to this problem is to limit popular involvement in politics and allowing those who have sufficient political know-how in matters of governance to take the lead in the political decision-making process. Such are the people who can guide the citizens into achieving their common good.

Democracy is a term that is perceived differently by different people. Arguments put forth in favor of it are that it encourages fair allocation of resources, sound decision making especially by the powerless and allows for transparency and justice through deliberation.

Arguments against democracy are that it is not the best option for decision making, it encourages anarchy and hence lack of unity and that democracy encourages people who do not have sufficient political expertise to be involved in decision making. This results in a lack of common good.

Dahl, Robert. The Democracy Sourcebook. NY: MIT Press, 2003. June 19, 2011.

Gordon, David. What’s the Argument for Democracy? LeRockwell.com, 1992. June 19, 2011.

Kofmel, Erich. Anti-Democratic Thought. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2008. June 19, 2011.

Sosa, Ernest & Villanueva, Enrique. Social, Political and Legal Philosophy, Volume 1. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. June 19, 2011.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, March 14). Democracy Arguments For and Against. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/

"Democracy Arguments For and Against." IvyPanda , 14 Mar. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Democracy Arguments For and Against'. 14 March.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Democracy Arguments For and Against." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/.

1. IvyPanda . "Democracy Arguments For and Against." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Democracy Arguments For and Against." March 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-arguments-for-and-against/.

• Deliberative Democracy as an Improvement of Democratic Participation
• “The Barber of Buenos Aires”: Finance Case of Argentina
• Social Desirability Bias in Post-Graduate Students
• 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
• The Effects of the American Correctional Policy

Democracy of Pakistan (English Essay With Outlines in 1200 Words)

English Essay on Democracy of Pakistan For College Students Democracy of Pakistan has suffered through several setbacks and challenges, but recent developments in the country have sparked a sense of optimism for change in the future.

Pakistan is a vibrant and resilient country. Democracy, despite its many flaws, has brought a lot of changes to the society and it is the only option for Pakistan. There are many positive changes being brought by democracy but one of the most significant problems is the lack of political awareness.

Pakistan is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, but has recently faced serious internal issues and political instability. This essay explores the history of democracy in Pakistan and the challenges it faces.

Table of Contents

What is Democracy?

Democracy is the political system in which the people have the power to choose their own leaders.

Types of Democracy

Democracy is a system of government in which the people are sovereign, that is to say they have the power to rule. It is usually assumed that all modern democracies are liberal democracies. This is true in the sense that most democracies claim to be liberal and many are in fact liberal in their practice. However, there are a number of different types of democracy. Some of these are more liberal than others, and some are more authoritarian than others.

Pros & Cons of Democracy

There are many pros and cons to democracy. On the positive side, it allows for a high degree of public participation in government, which can lead to better policy decisions. Additionally, democracies often have low levels of corruption, because elected officials are held accountable by their constituents.

However, democracies also have their fair share of problems. For example, they can be more volatile and prone to political instability than other types of governments. And while they may offer citizens a greater level of freedom and civil rights than some other systems, they can also be less efficient in delivering these benefits.

Democracy Vs Dictatorship

Democracy is a system of government where citizens have the power to make decisions about their own lives. This system is based on the principle that all people have the right to participate in the political process and have their voices heard.

Dictatorship is a system of government in which one person or group has total control over all aspects of society. This system is based on the principle that one person or group can be trusted to protect the interests of the population and make wise decisions for them.

Democracy of Pakistan

The current form of democracy in Pakistan is a parliamentary democracy. The Parliament is bicameral and consists of the Senate and the National Assembly. The Senate is made up of 100 members, who are elected for six-year terms.

The Prime Minister is the head of government and is appointed by the National Assembly. The Cabinet is the executive branch of the government and is responsible for the day-to-day running of the country. The judiciary is independent and consists of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and District Courts.  The head of the executive branch is the President.

According to the theory, democracy in Pakistan consists of three layers of government: federal, provincial and local. The central layer is represented by the federal government, while the provincial governments are the regional counterparts. The local governments are the last layer, and represent the community or the people.

Challenges For Democracy in Pakistan

Democracy of Pakistan in facing following challenges;

1. How can the government protect the rights of its citizens and ensure that they are able to express their views freely?

2. How can the government ensure that all eligible citizens can participate in the political process and have their voices heard?

The government can try to ensure that all eligible citizens can participate in the political process by providing information about the relevant candidates and the voting process. Additionally, the government can try to create a conducive environment in which citizens can freely express their views.

History of Democracy of Pakistan

Pakistan is one of the most diverse countries in the world, with a population that spans all social and economic strata. The country’s complex history has led to a variety of political systems and ideologies. Democracy has been an official policy of the government since 1973, but prior to that, various forms of government had operated in Pakistan. The first democratic system was established during the British Raj, when elected representatives from each province convened a legislative assembly to draft a constitution. However, this assembly was dissolved by the British authorities just four years after its establishment. The second attempt at establishing democracy took place following independence in 1947. However, due to disagreements between Prime Ministers and Presidents, democracy was not fully established until 1973. Since then, successive governments have enacted various constitutional amendments to expand the rights of citizens and form a more democratic system. Pakistan has a long and tumultuous history of democracy. The first democratic elections in the country were held in 1979. However, the country has had a number of periods of military rule, which have been followed by periods of democracy.

Future of Democracy in Pakistan

Pakistani democracy is in a state of flux. The country has been through multiple transitions, including from military dictatorship to parliamentary democracy and then to an elected civilian government in 2008. However, the country faces several challenges that could undermine its future as a democracy.

The most pressing issue facing Pakistani democracy is the lack of trust in institutions. According to a 2018 poll by the Pew Research Center, only 22 percent of Pakistanis say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the government to do what is right, down from 53 percent in 2006. This dwindling trust is likely due to years of instability and corruption – both within institutions and among politicians – which has led to disillusionment among citizens. To make matters worse, this lack of faith has created an environment where extremist groups can thrive.

Despite these challenges, Pakistani democracy is still in relatively good shape overall. The current government – which was elected in 2018 after years of political instability and corruption – is considered to be relatively stable, and there have been no major crises or violence linked to the democratic process so far. In addition, the country’s judiciary is considered to be independent and effective, which helps to ensure that the rule of law is upheld.

Key Features of Democracy of Pakistan

1. The Constitution of Pakistan was adopted in 1956.

2. Pakistan is a federal parliamentary republic.

3. The Head of State is the President, who is elected by the Parliament for a five-year term.

4. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in Pakistan.

5. There are three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

Final Thoughts on Democracy in Pakistan

In short although Pakistan is a democratic country, still democracy is in cradle here in Pakistan. Now a days there is a controlled democracy in Pakistan. Deep state is very strong in Pakistan. Concept of hybrid democracy, basic democracy, and non parties democracy were introduced in Pakistan. Creation of Pakistan was a result of democratic process, but as a nation we could never defend democracy of Pakistan . There is need of strengthening the democracy in Pakistan.

My Aim in Life

I am a professional content writer and have experience of 10 years. I also launched first ever English monthly magazine of human rights in Pakistan. Majority of content on this website is written by me.

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples

Essays on Democracy

If you were assigned with writing a democracy essay, know that you will need to work extra hard to make sure that your essay stands out, as democracy is a very common topic on government. Translated from Greek as "rule of the people", democracy is the most popular form of government in the world. Most democracy essays don't fail to explain that democracy is distinguished by the participation of citizens in government, their equality before the law, and the provision of political rights and freedoms to the individual. It is a good idea to include statistics or historical facts in your essays on democracy. Democracy creates the best conditions for the manifestation of the initiative, without which effective production is impossible. Peruse democracy essay samples we prepared – some pointers mention in them may enrich your essays.

This logic asserts that the citizens have the power to prevent the cost of war should they reckon it to be too high through the electoral influence over their sovereignty (Rosato 2003, p.587). Democracies have also established systems of “checks and balances” such as political competition, pluralism and executive selection...

Words: 1631

On 23rd June 2016, 30 million United Kingdom citizen from England, Wales and Scotland voted on a referendum to decide whether the United Kingdom should exit the European Union (EU) in a vote known as Brexit. The EU is a political and political organization was formed after world war two...

Populism is usually invoked in the press to illustrate new political developments, mostly with a negative connotation. However, some researchers see populism more positively. For instance, they believe that it is a form of direct democracy. However, others state that it is an indication of critical social predicaments which should...

Words: 1363

In the United States, democracy is described as a structure of political leadership whereby all policies and resolutions are made based on the principle of majority rule. The citizens elect their political representatives in regular, free and fair elections. A principle of political fairness, freedom, and equality, where all the...

A country that has adopted full democracy, such as the U.S., allows the public to participate in the decision-making process of the government. This inclusion of as many people as possible ensures that the public has faith and confidence in the government and that the principle of check and balances...

Words: 1570

Economic growth or development has been a major focus of policymakers of all countries in the world. However, for a number of reasons, some countries have made tremendous economic growth while others still lag behind in regards to economic development. The others are those under middle-income and low-income bracket. Therefore,...

Words: 1670

Found a perfect essay sample but want a unique one?

Request writing help from expert writer in you feed!

There is indeed a noticeable difference between capitalist development and democracy especially when viewed from the perspective of two different countries practicing either of the above. Ideally, capitalist development entails an economic system that revolves around private ownership and freedom in markets, capitalism can also be compared to a great...

Words: 1088

Today parliaments play a key role in addressing issues of democracy. Nevertheless, governments being the central institution of democracy and the embodiment of the people's will are becoming more influential. Governments mainly depict the people's expectations in that particular democracy. They respond to the needs of the people and help...

Words: 2510

Civic responsibility refers to the duty of a citizen. It comprises of actions that are geared towards social participation and governance within a society. Depending on constitutional and social policies in a community, civic responsibility may entail responsibilities in government, churches, and voluntary groups (Dalton and Welzel 5). Furthermore, advocacy...

The ideal outcome for democratization is to ensure that the citizens have a voice in the political process and a right to vote. In the 21 century, democratization has faced constant attack from authoritarian sectors ranging from Vladimir Putin to a couple of leaders from Venezuela. In the recent past,...

Words: 1830

There is a need to analyse whether Parliamentary System is more Democratic than a Presidential System. Besides, deciding whether a parliamentary system is more democratic than a presidential system raises a lot of controversies. Democracy typically involves a system of governance whereby the citizens exercise power directly or choose individuals...

Words: 2041

The Concept of Political Party Dominance and Democracy The concept of competitive political parties is often considered an essential factor in the pursuit of democracy. As such, in many aspects, single-party dominance showcase authoritarian governance since it ignores elements of democracy. Japan and Mexico are interesting nations for political analysts in...

Words: 1208

Related topic to Democracy

How to Write a Thesis about Democracy

One of my subscribers, Nadir, is asking, “How do I write a thesis about democracy?”

That’s a great question.

We’re going to break this task into three steps. Let’s do it.

Step 1: We’re going to break up “democracy,” meaning the concept of democracy, into more manageable parts.

Step 2: We’re going to come up with an overall structure, which is almost an equivalent of creating an outline.

Step 3:  Finally, we’re going to write out the thesis statement. Let’s do it.

Step 1. How can we break democracy into manageable parts?

We’ll use the Power of Three because it’s the easiest way to break up a topic. The power of three just means using three supporting ideas as evidence in our body of the essay.

How can we divide democracy into three parts? How can we discuss democracy in three different ways or three different sections of a paper?

Supporting Idea 1. Early origins.

These would be the origins of democracy that take their root in Ancient Greece.

Supporting Idea 2 .  Modern roots of today’s democracy.

So what would be the modern roots? The modern roots are the main thinkers of the Enlightenment and their ideas.

These are such prominent philosophers as John Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu.

The Age of Enlightenment is also known as the Age of Reason, and that is where today’s democracy really takes root.

Supporting Idea 3. Democracy today .

This would answer the question, how is today’s democracy different from democracy of the early origins, such as in ancient Greece, and during the Age of Enlightenment?

Step 2. Coming up with the overall structure.

We know that we have three sections because we used the power of three to get three supporting ideas. So, here is how we can structure our overall argument.

In section 1 , we’re going to talk about the ancient Greek origins of democracy.

In section 2 , we’re going to talk about its modern roots.

In section 3 , we’ll discuss democracy today.

What will these sections contain?

In Section 1 , we’re really talking about Athenian democracy. And we can subdivide this topic into more than one subtopic.

In ancient Greece, principles with which we are familiar were born. These include voting for rulers and to pass legislation. This could be one subsection.

But we can also note some peculiarities of that ancient kind of democracy.

For example, only non-slave men could vote, which made up only about 10-15% of the population. 

As a result, we now have two subsections of main section 1. Essentially, we are talking about two things:

• The familiar principles of Athenian democracy
• The peculiarities of its early days

Section 2 is about the early modern roots of democracy.

We’re talking about some of the main thinkers. The two philosophers who come up right away if you do a search on Google are John Locke and Montesquieu.

These two names give us two subsections. See how it works?

Could we subdivide them further? How can we discuss Johns Locke and Montesquieu? Well, we can discuss them in terms of their ideas.

For example, John Locke was concerned with such concepts as equality, social contract, and private property. We can simply write about several concepts from each of these thinkers to have a neat little subsection about each one.

You can write a paragraph on equality, and then a paragraph on social contract, and so on.

In order to discuss these thinkers, all we would have to do is discuss their ideas. Since each of them had more than one idea, this gives us a wonderful way to keep writing.

How much you want to subdivide your sections will depend on how big your paper has to be.

If you need only three to four pages, maybe you don’t have to go that deep. But if you have to write a 10-page or a 15-page paper, this way of dividing into subsections would be very helpful to you.

Section 3 is about Democracy today.

Modern democracy has its similarities to the Ancient Greek origins and to the early modern roots. It also has its differences from them.

The similarities can include some of the main ideas that remain constant at all times.

The differences can include some of the peculiarities of each time period, such as voter rights or electronic or mail-in voting.

And we’re ready to write out our thesis statement, based on all the preparatory work we just did.

Step 3. Writing out the thesis statement.

We are totally ready to write this thesis statement.

And here we are.

Democracy is an ancient principle that has undergone changes and that is practiced in today’s society. It originates in Ancient Greece but was rediscovered during the period of Enlightenment in Britain and France. While today’s democracy shares elements with the ancient and early modern forms, it has its own distinct traits.

Let’s take a closer look at this thesis statement.

The first sentence should summarize your entire essay completely and perfectly. And that’s exactly what we’re doing here.

The remaining sentences must outline the supporting points. We combined the first two supporting points in the second sentence. And the third sentence is devoted to the third supporting point.

Let’s take a look.

And there you have it: three steps to going from one concept, which in this case is Democracy, to a full thesis statement.

I wrote a detailed tutorial on how to write a thesis statement on any topic . This would be your best next step.

Hope this was helpful!

Tutor Phil is an e-learning professional who helps adult learners finish their degrees by teaching them academic writing skills.

Recent Posts

How to Write an Essay about Why You Want to Become a Nurse

If you're eager to write an essay about why you want to become a nurse, then you've arrived at the right tutorial! An essay about why you want to enter the nursing profession can help to...

How to Write an Essay about Why You Deserve a Job

If you're preparing for a job application or interview, knowing how to express why you deserve a role is essential. This tutorial will guide you in crafting an effective essay to convey this...

Democracy in Pakistan Essay with Quotations

Democracy in pakistan essay with quotations for fsc, class 10, class 12 and graduation.

This post contains an Essay on Democracy in Pakistan with Quotations for FSC, Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation. However, students of 2nd year can especially prepare this Democracy in Pakistan Essay. Some quotes are also available at the appropriate places in it. This is a sample essay taken from local notes. If you are a student in Pakistan, you can write this essay simply under the title essay on democracy, democracy essay, democracy in Pakistan essay and essay on Democracy in Pakistan. You will find more essays in Essays in English .

Essay on Democracy in Pakistan with Quotes for 2nd Year, B.A and BSC Students

“Democracy is the government of the people, for the people and by the people.” (Abraham Lincoln)

Representative democracy involves the sele3ction of government officials by the people being represented. The most common systems involve the election of the candidates with a majority vote.

Pakistan is a democratic and Islamic country, but democracy in Pakistan has been the most irregular and unsatisfactory. The principles of democracy are equality, freedom and social justice which are, unfortunately, not being fully enjoyed by the people of Pakistan. The reason is that the dictators never allow the principles of democracy to flourish in our country.

“When people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty”

The existence of feudal system controls the lives of millions of villagers and farmers. They are in the majority in the country, but they do not enjoy even the rights of the minority. The uneducated people will continue the vote for their lords and they will always remain illiterate, backward and down-trodden. The members of our elected national and provincial assemblies are big guns. Their own benefits keep the country backwards. The big industrialists also jump into politics to share the political and commercial benefits with their “jagirdaar” brothers. These “jagirdaars” and industrialists have always joined hands with the military dictators. The result is that Pakistan has a history of martial-laws and dictatorial democracies.

Our top political leaders, ministers, chief ministers, prime ministers and presidents have been coming from upper classes. They do not understand layman’s problems because they do not have the required ability and vision.  They are responsible for martial-laws. Democracy cannot flourish in the country in the absence of suitable leaders. Selfish leaders destroy the process of democracy and keep the country poor and backward.

“Be not overcome by evil but overcome evil by good.” (Romans)

The rise in terrorism, the growth of provincialism and sectarianism, population explosion and bad economic policies have also damaged democracy. For the last sixty years, there have been dictatorial governments in Pakistan which have led the country to irreparable losses. Every ruler promised to redress the grievances and miseries of the common people of Pakistan but always proved to be oppressor, tyrant, and destroyer of the country. The opposing forces are still working hard to sabotage the democratic process. We need another Quaid-e-Azam to free us from the mental slavery and put the country back on the track of true democracy, progress and prosperity.

In a democracy, the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.”  (Aristotle)

Democracy did not fail in Pakistan because of illiteracy or caste or ethnic differences or any of the other reasons put forward. The real reason is the ideology; Pakistan is wedded to. Sadly this is true of any Islamic country. The current argument can be finished on these words of “ Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve” . (G.B.Shaw)

You may also like Essay on Democracy with Outline and Quotations .

• More In English Essays

Essay Writing 101: The Basics That Every Writer Should Know

Students and Social Service Essay with Quotations

Load Shedding in Pakistan Essay – 1200 Words

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

• Privacy Policty
• Terms of Service
• Advertise with Us

Sample Essay On Democracy, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on June 9, 2018 June 9, 2018

Is writing essays not your thing? Do not force yourself to do something that you are not good at whereas you can approach Gudwriter experts with a simple “ do my homework for me ‘ request while you use that time to focus on more important things

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Democracy Essay Sample Outline

Introduction.

Thesis: Democracy is a system of government where the will of the people is the ultimate power. Though it has a decisive influence in most countries where it is practiced, several drawbacks amount from the practice.

Paragraph 1:

Democracy is, ‘the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’

• Free and fair elections characterize it.
• A country that thrives in a democracy should prioritize the protection of human freedoms and rights.

Paragraph 2:

Democracy discards privileges of a class or group of men.

• Ordinary people have the right to choose their leaders.
• All voters are eligible for leadership positions.

Paragraph 3:

Democracy ensures that all people are treated as equals before the law.

• Citizens make laws in a democratic country through their representatives.
• All people regardless of their influence in the society are treated equally under the law.

Paragraph 4:

Democracy instills a sense of responsibility in all citizens within a country.

• People take part in governing their country.
• People rise against oppression and air their views on governance.

Paragraph 5: 

Democracy greatly reduces the likelihood of political dissent.

• A democratically elected government receives its mandate from a majority of the citizenry.
• A majority should be content with it.

Paragraph 6:

Democracy operates by an exceptional majority.

• Illiterate persons and the ignorant, who make up the majority are given the power to choose leaders instead of the elites.
• Leadership positions are given to irresponsible people.

Paragraph 7:

Democracy proliferates inefficiency in governance.

• Most leaders in democratic countries focus more on creating political alliances rather than on development and administration. Administration in many democratic countries is run by bureaucrats, who have no obligation to the people.
• Elected leaders do not foster development in their countries.

Paragraph 8:

Democracy encourages corruption.

• Most leaders use their political influence to benefit those close to them.
• Only supporters of a political regime benefit from an elected government.

Democracy gives people the power to govern themselves. It allows them to make laws, which promote equality and fair treatment for all. However, it also encourages corruption and promotes inefficiency in governance. Appropriate use of democracy benefits both a country and its people.

Make use of the best writing tools that will come in handy when writing your essays or handling your assignments.

Free Essay On Democracy for Students

Democracy is a system of government where the will of the people is the ultimate power. It was introduced to give ordinary people the ability to take part in determining who governs them. Over the years more and more countries have followed the democratization path in an effort to improve their links with other democratic countries. It is a practice that is highly recommended by most international organizations. Even though this form of governance has real influence in most countries where it is practiced, it also has its downside. Below is a discussion regarding what democracy entails, and its positive and negative impacts in countries where it is practiced.

Many sources define democracy as, ‘the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ Freedom in a country is realized through the use of an open mechanism of selecting leaders. In this light, a democratic nation should be characterized by free and fair elections. Ordinary people hold the ultimate power in a democratic country, and therefore should be allowed to actively participate in civic life and politics. A state that thrives on democracy should prioritize the protection of human freedoms and rights. The rule of law is one of the crucial components of justice. In a democratic country, all individuals are treated equally under the law.

Merits of Democracy

Democracy discards privileges of a class or group of people. In a democratic environment, only people with the right to vote are given the responsibility of leadership. Every voter in a country has the potential to lead others. In a democratic state, the administration is not limited to few groups or individuals. It gives ordinary people the freedom to choose their leaders and to serve as leaders. Democracy ensures that no individual is above others as is often evident in other forms of government such as monarchies and anarchies. It upholds the values of equality and liberty in a country.

Democracy also ensures that all people are treated equally before the law. In a democratic country, rules are made by ordinary people through their representatives in the legislature. Laws made take into consideration the welfare of all people and not for those who belong to a particular class. The freedoms, interests, and rights of every citizen are highly and equally safeguarded. Resources in such a nation are similarly distributed because democracy stresses on equality of all persons. People in the three social classes are governed by the same set of rules and regulations. The law applies to all individuals irrespective of their influence in society. Perhaps you maybe interested in what it means to be American sample esays .

This method of governance further instills a sense of responsibility in all citizens within a country. It gives the common man the right of belonging to a particular nation. It also gives them a chance to participate in the nation’s governance. The people are therefore compelled to take matters of governance upon themselves so that if anything goes wrong, they will stand and question those they put in positions of leadership. They feel entitled to oppose any form of oppression that may arise in their country. They are given the right to speak up their minds and express their views about the governance or leadership without fear of being victimized.

Further, democracy has a significant strength in its ability to greatly reduce the likelihood of political dissent. Collier (2012) explains that since a democratically elected government receives its mandate from a majority of the citizenry, it implies that a majority should be content with it. This is not possible in other forms of government. It is only by constituting and running a government as informed by the needs of those who elect it that a system of governance can be said to be based on approval by the majority. Not even when a dictatorship works in the interest of all citizens can it be considered to enjoy majority approval. This is because the only sure way of determining what the public needs and/or wants is through elections. On the other hand however, the minority needs may not be fully met by a democratic government. Those who voted against such a government would feel left out and would thus develop a feeling of dissatisfaction (Collier, 2012). This notwithstanding, no system of politics or governance can see everybody get satisfied and it is only through democracy that a majority can be satisfied.

Demerits of Democracy

Democracy operates on majority rule. As earlier mentioned, democracy gives ordinary people the power to choose their leaders. Those who are preferred by the majority are regarded to be the elected leaders. However, in most countries, a high proportion of the population consists of illiterate or ignorant individuals who do not care about how the government is run. These people vote blindly and end up giving leadership positions to unqualified and undeserving persons. The elite makes up the minority in many countries, and their few numbers restrict them from determining those that assume positions of power.

Democracy also proliferates inefficiency in governance. Most leaders in democratic countries focus more on creating political alliances rather than on development and administration. Administration in many democratic countries is run by bureaucrats, who have no obligation to the people. Since most of those that elect such leaders are ignorant individuals, they are sucked into the debates of political alliances thus paying less attention to the delivery of services by such leaders. It therefore becomes difficult to foster infrastructural, social, and economic development in many democratic countries. People neglect their responsibilities of keeping the government in check, making it hard for leaders to make any meaningful developments. Democracy therefore negatively influences the ability of a country to experience significant economic growth.

Further, democracy encourages corruption. After elected leaders assume office, they embark on activities of forming new political parties and alliances. Leadership values and promises made to the people are forgotten. Developments are only initiated in regions that support ruling regimes, while other regions are neglected. The value of equality, which democracy purports to uphold, is often overlooked. Most state jobs are given based on favoritism. People in leadership positions use their influence to benefit those close to them and those who belong to their communities or support their political movements.

Democracy gives people the power to govern themselves. Through it, equality is upheld, and the rule of law takes its course. However, it also gives illiterate and ignorant individuals the power to lead others, and this contributes to inefficiency in governance and promotes corruption. Thus, democracy may only be of benefit to a country if used appropriately and in line with the true meaning of the word. Scheme through some quality criminal justice research paper topics you can choose for your assignment.

Ankita, T. (2016). “13 valid demerits of democracy form of government”. Preserve Articles . Retrieved June 19, 2020 from http://www.preservearticles.com/201106248563/13-valid-demerits-of-democracy-form-of-government.html

Ankita, T. (2017). “13 most essential merits of democracy form of government”. Preserve Articles . Retrieved June 19, 2020 from http://www.preservearticles.com/201106248562/13-most-essential-merits-of-democracy-form-of-government.html

Campbell, D. F. (2008). The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy .

Collier, R. (2012). Fundamental principles of democracy . Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Ghiorgis, A. (2012). “Principles of democracy”. Asmarino . Retrieved June 19, 2020 from http://asmarino.com/articles/1442-principles-of-democracy

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

• Pakistan/Current Affairs
• ISLAMIC STUDIES
• International Relations
• Gender Studies
• Afghanistan
• Climate Change
• Foreign policy
• Globalisation
• War on Terror
• BOOKS REVIEWS

Russia-Ukraine, China-Taiwan; An attempt for Unipolar World Order

Changing regional dynamics and pakistan, aurat azadi march: they should fight for equity not equality, why pakistan can’t recognize israel, has pakistan shifted its foreign policy from geo-politics to geo-economics, democracy in pakistan: hopes and hurdles.

Successive events and activities have taken place that make it crystal clear that there are hopes as well as hurdles in the way of democracy in Pakistan. One the one hand, the imposition of martial law by the military has become a distant dream now. Democratic leaders have turned mature. The democratic governments have not only shown distinguish performance, but also smoothly transferred power to another government as per election results for the first time in the history of Pakistan. The ECP has also improved its performance and the citizens have become aware of their rights to rule. These all events have created hopes for the democracy in Pakistan. One the other hand, indirect military interference in the democratic governments, feudal lord system, corruption of democratic leaders, poor literacy rate and ailing economy of the country, these all events act as hurdles in the way of democracy in Pakistan. Thus, it is established that the democracy in Pakistan encounters both hopes and hurdles.

Since the creation of Pakistan in 1947, democracy in the country has been witnessing both hopes and hurdles. The founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was keen to introduce democratic system in Pakistan. However, his sudden death impeded its proper imposition. Liaquat Ali Khan, afterward, carried the vision of Jinnah, but he also failed to give it a practical shape. Imposition of martial law by dictator Ayub khan closed all the door of democracy. Zulifqar ali Bhuttto appeared on the political screen and injected a new blood of hope for democracy in Pakistan. He pressurized General Yahya to hold elections. Consequently, he won the elections with a great margin in the West Pakistan and took an oath as the first democratic leader of the country. However, the hope could not sustained for a long time as General Zia imposed martial law and blocked the road of democratic progress. After Zia, democracy was seen, but it remained fragile and weak and gave green signal to another dictator General Pervez Musharraf, who ruled till 2008. After Musharraf, the democracy in Pakistan has been witnessing good days because it continues till today without any hurdle. Hence, Democracy in Pakistan witnessed both hopes and hurdles in Past.

A major hope for democracy in Pakistan lies in the fact the military will not come forward to impose its direct rule by dismantling the democratic system, as it did in past, because of two major reasons:  Firstly, the military government is not recognized by the international community and is subject to various economic sanctions. Pakistan, is currently in the process of development because of the initiation of CPEC, cannot afford sanctions at this critical stage. Our sensible and well-trained army knows this fact very well. Secondly, martial law is often imposed under the patronage of a super power. At present, Pakistan’s relations with the USA remain abysmal. Therefore, the army will avoid taking rein of the government directly. As such, martial law is now obsolete and the democratic government will continue to rule Pakistan.

Another hope for democracy in Pakistan is created in the form of maturity among the democratic leaders. In past, one Democratic Party conspired against another ruling party and stalled democratic progress.  For example, Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) staged protest against Zulifqar Ali Bhutto after 1977 general elections claiming the elections being rigged. The issue could have been resolved through political settlement, but they demanded the removal of Bhutto and imposition of Islamic rule. Consequently, the military got an opportunity to impose martial law under Zia in 1977 and obstructed the path of democracy. Besides, Nawaz Sharif, while Chief Minister of Punjab, created problems for Benazir Bhutto and tried hard to remove her government. Similarly, Benazir Bhutto played a role to remove Nawaz Sharif in 1993. The both democratic leader celebrated ouster of each other from the government and distributed sweets among their supporters. At present, the democratic leaders avoid taking such actions that could impede the democratic progress. For example, during 2008 PPP government, Nawaz Sharif was engaged in verbal war with Zardari, but did not stage protest to remove him. On the other hand, Zardari got an opportunity to remove Nawaz government during Imran Khan continuous protest in Islamabad. However, he realized that it would play in the hand of anti-democratic elements. Thus, the democratic leaders have now turned mature and avoiding taking any step that could harm the civilian rule.

The good performance of successive democratic governments has also contributed towards the well being of the democracy in Pakistan. The democratic governments are heading towards betterment. For instance, the existing government is better than previous government and the upcoming will have undergone even more improvement. The democratic government of Pakistan Peoples Party, from 2008 to 2013, faced numerous challenges of extremism and terrorism. However, the next democratic government under Nawaz Sharif successfully resolved those challenges and brought peace. The existing government under PTI is facing daunting economic challenges but is taking stringent measures to overcome them. Thus, the better performance of the governments has proved that fact that civilian can also run the country effectively and has left no room for the army to interfere in the administration directly.

The smooth transfer of power by two democratic parties to another one has enhanced the chances of democracy to flourish in the country too. For the first time in the history of Pakistan, two democratic parties have completed and transferred their power to the third one. It has created a proper line for power transfer in the future, which is fundamental pre-requisite for the glory of democracy in any country. Before, it was witnessed that the transfer was not smooth and created room for the anti-democratic elements. For instance, as mentioned above, had the democratic leader, after the elections of 1977, not created problems for power transfer, the military would have not imposed martial law. It was because of non-agreement on the transfer of power in past, democracy could not survive for a long time. Thus, the smooth transfer of power, now, will ensure the continuation of democracy in Pakistan.

The reform in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and its improved performance is another ingredient that creates a hope for democracy in Pakistan. At present, the prime minister with the consultation of leader of opposition appoints the chief election commissioner. The ruling government cannot appoint its own commissioner to get the election rigged. Besides, a proper mechanism for the appointment of the members has also been devised to ensure the transparent elections. It can be proved from the recent appointment of the two members of the ECP. In 2019, the two vacant seats of the members of the ECP could not been filled since eight months despite the constitutional provision for filling the seats in 45 days. It was because the federal government under Imran Khan and opposition could not reach a consensus on the names. In a surprise move, the government appointed the members without consultation, but the chief election commissioner refused to administer the oath of office to these appointees and claimed that the appointment was not based in accordance with the provision of constitution. Thus, it is reached that the reforms in the ECP is playing a vital role in promoting the democracy by conducting smooth and transparent elections.

The citizen of Pakistan have, now, turned aware about their rights to rule the country and it is a good sign for the development of democracy. Before, many citizens welcomed the dictator because the democratic leaders failed to improve their lifestyle. However, the people in uniform could not satisfy their needs as well. As a result, they have turned against dictators too. At present, almost all the citizens speak against the martial law and blame the military for their present poor conditions. Now, instead of welcoming their rule, they will stand against them in the same way the people of turkey blocked the prospects of military rule by lying before the tanks. Thus, the local citizen, now, loathes martial law and it is a good for the prosperity of democracy in the country.

A major hurdle, of course, is the indirect interference of the military in the democratic government. The military not only frame foreign policy of Pakistan, but also implement it. The civilian has no say in the policies towards India, Afghanistan and the US. Besides, the head of Intelligence bureau or other sensitive institutions like defense is always retired military officer. It means that the civilians are not trusted with the sensitive policies. Currently, many retired military officers are occupying some important posts. For instance, the federal Interior minister is Ijaz Ahmed Shah. He is a former head of Intelligence bureau and a retired army officer. Besides, Lieutenant General Asim Saleem Bajwa is serving as the Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Information and Broadcasting. He is retired Pakistani three-star general. Thus, the indirect rule of the military does not bode well for the democracy in Pakistan.

The feudal lord system is acting as the stumbling rock in the way of democracy in Pakistan. Democracy relies on the votes of the local citizens. However, in Pakistan, some feudal lords enjoy full control over the authority and decisions of people in their respective areas. Normally, these feudal lords own thousands of acres agriculture lands and almost all the people living in the villages act as their farmers. These people rely on them economically. It is, therefore, during elections, they vote only a candidate told by their feudal lords. They do not act on their own interest, but over the command of their superiors. In many cases, these feudal lords contest elections themselves. Consequently, they win the elections no matter how corrupt they are and from which political party they contest. Thus, the system of feudal lord is the basic hurdle in the way of democracy in Pakistan.

The fact that, almost all the democratic leaders are corrupt, also contributes to the fragility of the democracy in Pakistan. They mostly work for the wider self-interest rather than the interest of the country and its citizens after being elected. They also favor the non-transparent appointment of the government servants to fill the institutions with their own people. Besides, they use the public funds for their personal expenditure and deem it below their dignity to not make piles of illegal money. They use the same money to win the elections. It was proved by the recent accountability campaign of PM Imran Khan. Under his drive, the main leaders of the two main democratic parties were arrested on the account of corruptions. The panama leaks also revealed some names of the democratic leaders including farmer PM Nawaz Sharif. Because of their corruption, the local people dislike democracy and some time talk in the favor of the authoritarian rule. Hence, the corruption of the democratic leaders is blocking the route of democracy in the country.

The poor literacy rate of Pakistan is negatively affecting the performance of the democratic governments very badly. It is known fact that the democratic system is successful in the countries where the literacy rate is good. It is because; a person with good education background, knows the importance of his vote and uses it properly for the betterment of the country. As a result, efficient democratic leaders are elected that grab the rein of the country. Because of this reason, democracies are bearing fruitful results in the developed countries like the US and is completely collapsing in those countries where the literacy rate is poor. In Pakistan, with around 50 per cent illiterate people, democracy has failed to improve the lifestyle of the people and solve the existing crisis faced by the country. Thus, it is not wrong to say that inadequate literacy rate is causing damage to democracy in Pakistan.

The cripple economy of Pakistan also hampers the democratic progress. The better economic position of any country is directly proportional to the prosperity of democracy. The democratic system evolved from Greece because the export of the wine improved its economic position and thus a demand was raised for the civilian rule. The system remained successful. However, democracy has performed poorly in the countries facing the economic crisis. Take a classical example of Pakistan. The biggest hurdle faced by the PM Imran Khan is the major economic challenges faced by the country. These crises have not only made it difficult for his democratic government to focus on the other issues, but also created bad feelings among the citizen regarding the system. As such, the poor economy of Pakistan is acting as a biggest hurdle in the way of democracy.

An association of democratic nations must be formed to protect young democracies around the world including Pakistan from the threat of the dictators. The strong democratic nations like the US and European countries should extend their support to the civilian rules during crisis. Democracy needs support and the best support for democracy can come from other democracies. Had there been an association of democratic nations, it would have been difficult for the dictators like Zia and Musharraf to impose martial law in Pakistan. Alarmingly, in Pakistan, the military rule received generous financial support from the US, while the civilians were sidelined every time. Thus, the only way to sustain democracy in Pakistan is to form an association of democratic nations at the global level.

It is imperative for the indigenous democratic leaders to improve their performance and work hard for the betterment of the civilian to win their support. Democracy needs the cooperation of the local citizens to flourish in any country. However, the most of the democratic leaders are corrupt in Pakistan and has failed to show distinguish performance. As a result, democracy has become infamous in the country. Had they worked with faithfulness and honesty to improve the lifestyle of the people, it would have been nearly impossible for the dictators to impose direct rule. It was because of the inefficient of the democratic leaders that the citizens never resisted the military. Otherwise, they would have lay before the tanks the same way the citizens did in Turkey when a dictator tried to impose martial law there. Thus, the democratic leaders need to improve their performance to block all the route of anti democratic elements.

As such, it is reached that there is hopes as well as hurdles in the way of democracy in Pakistan. Some events like inability of the military to impose direct rule under current circumstances, mature leadership as compared to past, better performance of successive democratic governments, smooth transfer of powers by the democratic parties, improvement in the performance of the ECP and awareness among the people regarding the civilian rule, have created hope for democracy in Pakistan. In the contrast, some other events like, indirect interference of the military in the democratic governments, feudal lords system, corruption of democratic leaders, alarming literacy rate and poor economy of the country, have caused hurdles in the way of democracy in Pakistan. Keeping in view this situation, an association of democratic nations must be formed to save democracy from the anti-democratic elements. Besides, it is imperative for the democratic leaders to strive for improving the lifestyle of the local citizens to win their cooperation. Thus, democracy in Pakistan faces both hopes and hurdles and it is important to remove impediments to further flourish the civilian rule.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Women empowerment is key to development of a country, economic position, not military, determines the strength of any country, can digitalization of an economy help overcoming the existing economic crisis of pakistan, 19 comments.

Thanks dear for sharing such valuable essay.

Nice one bro Try to share material on save water and secure pakistanfuture And also tourism and Pakistan please

Valuable information

Very informative,

informative.. thanks for sharing sir..

Splendidly , emphasised sir , we need more like this for our better understanding . Thanks

Well-written and well-updated essay, more power to you. However, an important part is missing- transitory paragraph. You have directly jumped from hopes to hurdles without giving any pause for recap and promo.

Amazing! I was not in the mood to read such long essays, but, the presentation skills of the author compelled me to read it completely.

Not a scientific one

Very informative and well organized essay👍👍

well informative and good explained thankx sir

Well written

It’s informative Sir

Every point is organised in a well manner . amazing .

sir can we write this essay in 2023 pms exam?

Wow:U brilliantly expressed ideas about democracy. What a expressions!

Such a fine art of words … Clapping from my side sir ….

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

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

EDITOR PICKS

Causes of the russian invasion of ukraine, neo-cold war in the 21st century: us vs china, the qur’anic, scientific and logical arguments for god’s existence, popular posts, political parties are responsible for imposition of martial laws in pakistan, impact of climate change on the national security of pakistan, pakistan’s foreign policy: us-pakistan relations during soviet-afghan war, popular category.

• International Relations 34
• Pakistan/Current Affairs 30
• Foreign policy 10
• Afghanistan 8
• Gender Studies 7
• Climate Change 6
• ISLAMIC STUDIES 6
• Privacy Policy

Democracy in Pakistan: Challenges and Prospects

• Quratulain Babar
• February 11, 2024
• CSS , CSS Essays , CSS Solved Essays

Democracy in Pakistan: Challenges and Prospects | CSS & PMS Solved Essays

Quratulain Babar , a Sir Syed Kazim Ali student, has attempted the CSS essay “ Democracy in Pakistan: Challenges and Prospects ” on the given pattern, which Sir  Syed Kazim Ali  teaches his students. Sir Syed Kazim Ali has been Pakistan’s top English writing and CSS, PMS essay and precis coach with the highest success rate of his students. The essay is uploaded to help other competitive aspirants learn and practice essay writing techniques and patterns to qualify for the essay paper.

1-Introduction

Although Pakistan’s democracy is still in its early stages, facing challenges, such as public unawareness, a distorted political culture, and a widening gap between political parties and the electorate, democracy holds a crucial role in the country’s society, emphasizing the necessity of immediate free and fair elections and improved governance as essential steps to overcome the current political turmoil.

2-Understanding Democracy and its prerequisites?

3-State of Democracy in Pakistan

4-Challenges to Democracy in Pakistan

• Case in point:  According to Barbara Crossett, a New York Times reporter, in Pakistan, the baradari system plays a crucial role in the party’s choice of candidates
• Case in point:  The average voter turnout for the past nine general elections is just over 45 per cent.
• Case in point:  Major political parties like PPP and PML (N) hold no internal elections for party offices, which are filled through nominations and appointments.
• Case in point:  According to the Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, Pakistan is ranked at 140th position among 180 countries.
• Case in point:  The inability of the civilian governments to complete their five-year tenure.

5-Prospects of Democracy in Pakistan

• Case in point:  It was stated at a Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency’s roundtable discussion on the International Day of Democracy that 63 per cent of Pakistanis believe that a civilian government can govern the country.
• Case in point:  The study conducted by the University of Karachi on a sample of students shows that political awareness among the youth is due to mass media.
• Case in point:  Many Chief Justices have considered missing persons, and a particular cell has been made to deal with the cases.
• Case in point:  The lawyers’ movement of 2007-08
• Case in point:  The punishment of paramilitary personnel who recklessly shot a criminal suspect in Karachi, which followed an expose of the brutal shooting by a television channel .

6-How to Counter the Challenges to Democracy?

• ✓By restructuring the political parties
• ✓By promoting a culture of cooperation among political parties
• ✓By holding free and fair elections 

7-Conclusion 

Democracy, in its present form, has taken a long time to emerge, bolstered by many developments – from 1215, the English Magna Carta, to the French and the American Revolutions in the eighteenth century, to the adult franchise spread in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in North America and Europe. But since the latter half of the twentieth century, democracy has been established as a form of government to which every nation is entitled – whether in Europe, America, Asia, or Africa. The flowering and reach of democratic practice are, however, a continuing process. Likewise, democracy in Pakistan, still in its juvenile stage, is undergoing the same evolution as it is yet to solve many problems that threaten its democracy. For instance, unawareness among the masses about the nature of democracy, distorted political culture, deteriorating political crisis, and, among others, the widening political gap between the political parties and the electorate are significant hurdles in democracy. Despite these challenges, it is irrefutable that democracy has attained a special place in Pakistan, and if it continues to flourish, its prospects can be multiple. To illustrate, the wide acceptance of democracy, the emergence of an assertive judiciary, and a more vibrant civil society are the rays of light in the darkness, indicating that there is no viable political solution other than democracy for Pakistan’s political turmoil. Thus, the political elite should pull Pakistan out of this dilemma by holding immediate free and fair elections and improving governance to fill the void between the government and the masses.

Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and significant initiatives of a state or other political entity are determined directly or indirectly by the “People’. Historically, this group was often a minority, such as all male adults in ancient Athens or all sufficiently propertied male adults in 19th-century Britain. However, the concept has evolved to encompass all or nearly all adult citizens in the modern era. Like any other form of government, democracy has its fundamentals, without which it cannot flourish in any state. For instance, free and fair elections are the prerequisites of democracy. Moreover, free media, newspapers, and television cannot be ignored in the contemporary era because they are essential to creating political awareness among the general public. Another vital precondition of democracy is education, which generates a well-informed electorate. In addition, freedom of speech and expression, particularly on societal and political issues, is the critical essence of democracy. All these elements and a fair and impartial judiciary form the main pillars of democracy.

Currently, Pakistan is experiencing a complete breakdown of democracy with a powerless interim setup at the centre provinces serving beyond their constitutional mandate, a divided judiciary that is being openly defied, and an increasingly censored media. Moreover, the post-2018 period has seen democratic reversals and regression as the hybrid arrangement entailed the military establishment, giving it an expansive role in politics, governance, and even the economy.  According to the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency, the phase that ended with the Parliament’s dissolution in August this year is the period of democratic decline rather than democratic consolidation.  Further, this has been accompanied by primarily politically motivated corruption cases against opposition leaders, the jailing of political leaders and activists, the defiance of the rule of law, and the marginalization of the Parliament.

There are many culprits behind the sorry state of democracy in the country. First, one of the significant challenges to informed choices is Pakistan’s flawed political culture. Political culture refers to peoples’ attitudes toward the political system and its various parts and attitudes towards the self in the system. In the case of Pakistan, the political structure is greatly influenced by caste and the radar system. In this system, people are divided into social hierarchical communities, and each community has its place in the social hierarchy, remaining constant generation after generation. Moreover, individual opinions have no value; these are bound by the decisions of the biradari, who make decisions on every political and social aspect.  According to Barbar Crossette, a New York Times reporter, the biradari system in Pakistan plays a vital role in the party’s choice of candidates . Further, the backward rural areas of the country have feudalism-like political structures regulated by feudal lords. As a result, the leading political parties maximize their vote by harnessing landlords and factory owners. Thus, in such a political culture, informed choices become a dream for individuals whose opinions do not stand a chance before the biradari or landlord.

Another factor that poses a challenge to democratic stability is what might be called the political gap between the existing political parties and the electoral system, and several factors have transformed the national landscape. To illustrate, recent years have seen a wave of urbanization – a shift in the centre of economic power from rural areas to cities, the expansion of modern communication technologies, and greater public awareness brought about by broadcast and social media. However, representative or electoral politics have lagged and failed to reflect these changes. This has created a growing disconnect between traditional politics and new social dynamics. A telling symptom of the gap between electoral politics and changing public aspirations is the falling voter turnout.  For instance, the average voter turnout for the past nine general elections is just a little over 45 per cent, which means that more than half of the voters do not even participate in electing their new governments at the federal and provincial levels . Thus, the archaic nature of Pakistani politics puts it at odds with the changing society and its needs, making it difficult for democracy to evolve. 

Moreover, the weak institution of political parties also hampers the development of democracy.  For example, major political parties like PPP and PML(N) hold no internal elections for party offices, which are filled through nominations and appointments.  As a result, party officials are not representatives of the workers who feel frustrated about this imposition from the top. These party officials tend to come from the ruling classes and care little about the workers and the need to remain in touch with the problems of ordinary citizens. They turn into sycophants for the leader at the top and end up insulating and isolating him from political realities, thus creating a void between the party and its voters and allowing non-political actors to come into play.

Further, bad governance is another major hurdle in democracy, as the country is performing poorly at all governance indicators: transparency, accountability, service delivery, and the rule of law. It is manifested in governance based on clientelist politics geared to rewarding networks of supporters rather than the needs of citizens. This encourages rent-seeking behaviour and corruption.  According to the Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, Pakistan is ranked at 140th position among 180 countries.  Regarding other governance indicators, the government cannot provide public goods to its citizens and uphold the rule of law. For example, according to a report released by the Pakistan Medical Association (PMA), the government cannot provide even safe drinking water to its citizens, let alone other necessities of the masses. Thus, the inability of the government to govern and cater to the needs of the masses does not allow democracy to flourish in the country.

Further, political instability is one of the significant challenges to democracy.  This is manifested in the inability of civilian governments to complete their tenure.  It happens due to the lack of cooperation and tolerance between the ruling party and the opposition. This results in the apolitical forces to come into play, leading to political instability. Thus, the clashes and conflicts between the political parties are the major impediments to the development of actual democratic norms.

Nonetheless, no matter how significant these challenges are, they cannot obstruct the dawn of democracy in the country. As is evident from changing socio-political dynamics, only the future of democracy in Pakistan is feasible. In this regard, significant trends favouring the consolidation of democracy are discussed below.

First, political actors – political parties and other stakeholders and participants in the democratic process – now have a shared stake in the continuance of democracy. However, this was not always so in the past when one or another political party looked to the army to resolve their political disputes. But now, there is wide acceptance and public consensus that military intervention is not the answer or the option.  In this consideration, it was stated at a Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency’s roundtable discussion on the International Day of Democracy that 63 per cent of Pakistanis believe that a civilian government can govern the country.  The military even supports this consensus, which is moving toward accepting the principle of civilian democracy. This has added to the delegitimization of military rule in the country. Thus, the broad consensus on the democratic form of government indicates the prospects for democracy in the country.

Moreover, the growth and expansion of media – broadcast and social, has made it a powerful political force, paving the way for democracy. It is exercising this power to hold rulers to account, expose corruption and injustice, and become a platform for sustained demands for accountable governance. Undoubtedly, the media in Pakistan has become more open, direct, and proactive, highlighting societal wrongdoings. As a result, it has become an effective tool that creates political awareness among the masses, enabling them to participate in the political process effectively.  For instance, the study conducted by the University of Karachi on a sample of students shows that political awareness among the youth is due to mass media.  Consequently, political awareness has led the youth to have political discussions and political participation in different forums. Thus, the rise of media as a robust political force indicates the bright future of democracy in the country. 

Like the media, another emerging force is the assertive judiciary that is contributing to the consolidation of democracy. To illustrate, it is seeking to operationalize democratic checks and balances, limit the excess of executive power and focus government attention on pressing issues, for example, the breakdown of law and order in Karachi, increasing corruption, and the cases of missing persons. Among many cases going on at present in the Supreme Court is an investigation of missing persons allegedly picked by the country’s security forces.  In this regard, many Chief Justices have considered missing persons, and a particular cell has been made to deal with the cases.  In this way, the judiciary tries to ensure that ill practices are subject to the law and that Pakistan’s democracy is anchored in the rule of law and does not degenerate into elected autocracy or kleptocracy.

In addition, the rise of a large, more assertive urban middle class also has an essential bearing on democratic consolidation.  It has unleashed new political dynamics as it wants a more prominent political voice, expressing itself first in the lawyers’ movement of 2007-08.  This saw months of street action by lawyers and members of civil society in support of judges ousted by President Pervaiz Musharaf and in defense of the rule of law. Two waves of protests led to the restoration of the Chief Justice and his colleagues. Although the campaign had a single-point agenda, it reflected broader liberal-democratic aspirations and was spearheaded by middle-class professionals, with politicians following, not leading. Thus, the urban middle class wanting to play a role in the country’s politics affords opportunities to align Pakistan’s governance with the forces of demographic change and the modernizing impulses of a social class whose universe is quite different from the stagnant, patrimonial world of traditional politics. 

Similarly, the well-informed civil society is another countervailing force, increasing the odds of democracy in the country. In this regard, unjust practices at national and international levels are now challenged more frequently and confidently. Examples abound of citizens taking their cases to the media, the media mounting pressure, and the judiciary taking action in a mutually reinforcing manner.  This is exemplified by the punishment of paramilitary personnel who recklessly shot a criminal suspect in Karachi, which followed an expose of the brutal shooting by a television channel.  This and other cases illustrate a new form of citizen-driven accountability.

So, to ensure the country’s democratic evolution, specific measures are suggested to avert the challenges to democracy. For example, the restructuring of political parties is of utmost significance. This institution needs to be strong by involving all members in decision-making. In addition, all the parties must carry out regular elections within their respective parties so new leaders can emerge. Local governments are the ideal nurturing grounds for political leadership as the people serving in the union councils are aware of the ground realities and needs of the people and, thus, are more deserving of coming up in the political hierarchy of their concerned political parties. This would ultimately lead to a strong leadership with a well-defined political ideology, leading the country on a democratic path.

Furthermore, there is a dire need for a cooperation-based system where all political stakeholders collaborate for the greater national good regardless of their diverse ideologies. This can be done by enacting a charter of democracy, as in the past, so that an environment of tolerance can prevail. This is necessary for the smooth functioning of the government as it would prevent the exploitative elements from taking advantage of the differences between the ruling elite and the opposition.

No less importantly, in the contemporary scenario, the most widely advocated solution to the challenges to democracy is the prompt conduct of free and fair elections. As a result of the ousting of the previous government, most citizens feel betrayed as they do not believe in the legitimacy of the current interim setup. Thus, fair general elections would lead to political stability, ultimately opening up the avenues for democratic stability of the country.  

In summary, democracy in Pakistan has specific challenges like weak political parties, bad governance, the gap between the masses and the government, and political instability. Still, the future of democracy in Pakistan is feasible due to the emergence of new acts changing the country’s political dynamics. For instance, the government is witnessing an interplay between a recently empowered judiciary, vigorous media, and citizen activism. These are excellent signs to argue that democracy has a future in Pakistan. Thus, to overcome the impediments of democracy, there is a need to restructure the political parties, hold free and fair elections, and improve governance.

CSS Solved Past Papers’ Essays

Looking for the last ten years of CSS and PMS Solved Essays and want to know how Sir Kazim’s students write and score the highest marks in the essays’ papers? Then, click on the CSS Solved Essays to start reading them. CSS Solved Essays

CSS Solved General Science & Ability Past Papers

Want to read the last ten years’ General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers to learn how to attempt them and to score high? Let’s click on the link below to read them all freely. All past papers have been solved by  Miss Iqra Ali  &  Dr Nishat Baloch , Pakistan’s top CSS GSA coach having the highest score of their students. General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers

Recent Posts

Top Categories

Cssprepforum, education company.

cssprepforum.com

Welcome to Cssprepforum, Pakistan’s largest learning management system (LMS) with millions of questions along with their logical explanations educating millions of learners, students, aspirants, teachers, professors, and parents preparing for a successful future. 

Founder:   Syed Kazim Ali Founded:  2020 Phone: +92-332-6105-842 +92-300-6322-446 Email:  [email protected] Students Served:  10 Million Daily Learners:  50,000 Offered Courses: Visit Courses  

More Courses

Basic English Grammar and Writing Course

Extensive English Essay & Precis Course for CSS and PMS

CSS English Essay and Precis Crash Course for 2023

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox.

• CSS Solved Essays
• CSS Solved GSA
• CSS Solved PA
• CSS Solved Islamiat
• Current Affairs
• All Courses
• Writers Club
• All Authors
• All Members
• All Teachers
• Become an Author
• Who is Sir Syed Kazim Ali?
• Privacy Policy

CssPrepForum is Pakistan’s largest and greatest platform for CSS, PMS, FPSC, PPSC, SPSC, KPPSC, AJKPSC, BPSC, GBPSC, NTS, and other One Paper 100 Marks MCQs exams’ students. It has become Pakistan’s most trusted website among CSS, PMS students for their exams’ preparation because of its high-quality preparation material.

@ 2023 Cssprepforum. All RightsReserved.

The Atlantic’s June Cover Story: Anne Applebaum on How “Democracy Is Losing the Propaganda War”

F or The Atlantic ’s June cover story, “ Democracy Is Losing the Propaganda War ,” staff writer Anne Applebaum reports on how autocrats in China, Russia, and other places around the world are now making common cause with MAGA Republicans to discredit liberalism and freedom everywhere. Applebaum’s story is adapted from her forthcoming book, Autocracy Inc. (publishing July 23), and draws from her exceptional reporting for The Atlantic .

Even in authoritarian states where surveillance is almost total, Applebaum reports, “the experience of tyranny and injustice can radicalize people. Anger at arbitrary power will always lead someone to start thinking about another system, a better way to run society.” This has resulted in autocratic regimes slowly turning their repressive mechanisms outward, into the democratic world. Applebaum writes: “If people are naturally drawn to the image of human rights, to the language of democracy, to the dream of freedom, then those concepts have to be poisoned. That requires more than surveillance, more than close observation of the population, more than a political system that defends against liberal ideas. It also requires an offensive plan: a narrative that damages both the idea of democracy everywhere in the world and the tools to deliver it.”

To accomplish this, Applebaum reports, autocracies are now making systematic efforts to influence both popular and elite audiences, including via the use of state-controlled media—most notably China’s Xinhua news agency and Russia’s RT, but also Venezuela’s Telesur network and Iran’s Press TV, along with numerous others—to create stories, slogans, memes, and narratives promoting the worldview of the autocracies. These, in turn, are repeated and amplified in other countries, translated into multiple languages, and reshaped for local markets around the world.

When these stories make their way to the U.S., Applebaum reports, “a part of the American political spectrum is not merely a passive recipient of the combined authoritarian narratives that come from Russia, China, and their ilk, but an active participant in creating and spreading them. Like the leaders of those countries, the American MAGA right also wants Americans to believe that their democracy is degenerate, their elections illegitimate, their civilization dying. The MAGA movement’s leaders also have an interest in pumping nihilism and cynicism into the brains of their fellow citizens, and in convincing them that nothing they see is true. Their goals are so similar that it is hard to distinguish between the online American alt-right and its foreign amplifiers.” The State Department has in the past decade created a division to preemptively combat (or “prebunk”) foreign disinformation operations. But no such agency exists to combat the spread of Russian and Chinese propaganda within the United States.

“One could call this a secret authoritarian ‘plot’ to preserve the ability to spread antidemocratic conspiracy theories, except that it’s not a secret. It’s all visible, right on the surface,” Applebaum writes. “Russia, China, and sometimes other state actors—Venezuela, Iran, Hungary—work with Americans to discredit democracy, to undermine the credibility of democratic leaders, to mock the rule of law. They do so with the goal of electing Trump, whose second presidency would damage the image of democracy around the world, as well as the stability of democracy in America, even further.”

“ Democracy Is Losing the Propaganda War ” was published today in The Atlantic . Please reach out with any questions or requests: [email protected].

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Deep, Tangled Roots of American Illiberalism

By Steven Hahn

Dr. Hahn is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at New York University and the author, most recently, of “Illiberal America: a History.”

In a recent interview with Time, Donald Trump promised a second term of authoritarian power grabs, administrative cronyism, mass deportations of the undocumented, harassment of women over abortion, trade wars and vengeance brought upon his rivals and enemies, including President Biden. “If they said that a president doesn’t get immunity,” Mr. Trump told Time, “then Biden, I am sure, will be prosecuted for all of his crimes.”

Further evidence, it seems, of Mr. Trump’s efforts to construct a political world like no other in American history. But how unprecedented is it, really? That Mr. Trump continues to lead in polls should make plain that he and his MAGA movement are more than noxious weeds in otherwise liberal democratic soil.

Many of us have not wanted to see it that way. “This is not who we are as a nation,” one journalist exclaimed in what was a common response to the violence on Jan. 6, “and we must not let ourselves or others believe otherwise.” Mr. Biden has said much the same thing.

While it’s true that Mr. Trump was the first president to lose an election and attempt to stay in power, observers have come to recognize the need for a lengthier view of Trumpism. Even so, they are prone to imagining that there was a time not all that long ago when political “normalcy” prevailed. What they have failed to grasp is that American illiberalism is deeply rooted in our past and fed by practices, relationships and sensibilities that have been close to the surface, even when they haven’t exploded into view.

Illiberalism is generally seen as a backlash against modern liberal and progressive ideas and policies, especially those meant to protect the rights and advance the aspirations of groups long pushed to the margins of American political life. But in the United States, illiberalism is better understood as coherent sets of ideas that are related but also change over time.

This illiberalism celebrates hierarchies of gender, race and nationality; cultural homogeneity; Christian religious faith; the marking of internal as well as external enemies; patriarchal families; heterosexuality; the will of the community over the rule of law; and the use of political violence to achieve or maintain power. This illiberalism sank roots from the time of European settlement and spread out from villages and towns to the highest levels of government. In one form or another, it has shaped much of our history. Illiberalism has frequently been a stalking horse, if not in the winner’s circle. Hardly ever has it been roundly defeated.

A few examples may be illustrative. Although European colonization of North America has often been imagined as a sharp break from the ways of home countries, neo-feudal dreams inspired the making of Euro-American societies from the Carolinas up through the Hudson Valley, based as they were on landed estates and coerced labor, while the Puritan towns of New England, with their own hierarchies, demanded submission to the faith and harshly policed their members and potential intruders alike. The backcountry began to fill up with land-hungry settlers who generally formed ethnicity-based enclaves, eyed outsiders with suspicion and, with rare exceptions, hoped to rid their territory of Native peoples. Most of those who arrived in North America between the early 17th century and the time of the American Revolution were either enslaved or in servitude, and master-servant jurisprudence shaped labor relations well after slavery was abolished, a phenomenon that has been described as “belated feudalism.”

The anti-colonialism of the American Revolution was accompanied not only by warfare against Native peoples and rewards for enslavers, but also by a deeply ingrained anti-Catholicism, and hostility to Catholics remained a potent political force well into the 20th century. Monarchist solutions were bruited about during the writing of the Constitution and the first decade of the American Republic: John Adams thought that the country would move in such a direction and other leaders at the time, including Washington, Madison and Hamilton, wondered privately if a king would be necessary in the event a “republican remedy” failed.

The 1830s, commonly seen as the height of Jacksonian democracy, were racked by violent expulsions of Catholics , Mormons and abolitionists of both races, along with thousands of Native peoples dispossessed of their homelands and sent to “Indian Territory” west of the Mississippi.

The new democratic politics of the time was often marked by Election Day violence after campaigns suffused with military cadences, while elected officials usually required the support of elite patrons to guarantee the bonds they had to post. Even in state legislatures and Congress, weapons could be brandished and duels arranged; “bullies” enforced the wills of their allies.

When enslavers in the Southern states resorted to secession rather than risk their system under a Lincoln administration, they made clear that their Confederacy was built on the cornerstone of slavery and white supremacy. And although their crushing defeat brought abolition, the establishment of birthright citizenship (except for Native peoples), the political exclusion of Confederates, and the extension of voting rights to Black men — the results of one of the world’s great revolutions — it was not long before the revolution went into reverse.

The federal government soon allowed former Confederates and their white supporters to return to power, destroy Black political activism and, accompanied by lynchings (expressing the “will” of white communities), build the edifice of Jim Crow: segregation, political disfranchisement and a harsh labor regime. Already previewed in the pre-Civil War North, Jim Crow received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court and the administration of Woodrow Wilson .

Few Progressives of the early 20th century had much trouble with this. Segregation seemed a modern way to choreograph “race relations,” and disfranchisement resonated with their disenchantment with popular politics, whether it was powered by Black voters in the South or European immigrants in the North. Many Progressives were devotees of eugenics and other forms of social engineering, and they generally favored overseas imperialism; some began to envision the scaffolding of a corporate state — all anticipating the dark turns in Europe over the next decades.

The 1920s, in fact, saw fascist pulses coming from a number of directions in the United States and, as in Europe, targeting political radicals. Benito Mussolini won accolades in many American quarters. The lab where Josef Mengele worked received support from the Rockefeller Foundation. White Protestant fundamentalism reigned in towns and the countryside. And the Immigration Act of 1924 set limits on the number of newcomers, especially those from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were thought to be politically and culturally unassimilable.

Most worrisome, the Ku Klux Klan, energized by anti-Catholicism and antisemitism as well as anti-Black racism, marched brazenly in cities great and small. The Klan became a mass movement and wielded significant political power; it was crucial, for example , to the enforcement of Prohibition. Once the organization unraveled in the late 1920s, many Klansmen and women found their way to new fascist groups and the radical right more generally.

Sidelined by the Great Depression and New Deal, the illiberal right regained traction in the late 1930s, and during the 1950s won grass-roots support through vehement anti-Communism and opposition to the civil rights movement. As early as 1964, in a run for the Democratic presidential nomination, Gov. George Wallace of Alabama began to hone a rhetoric of white grievance and racial hostility that had appeal in the Midwest and Middle Atlantic, and Barry Goldwater’s campaign that year, despite its failure, put winds in the sails of the John Birch Society and Young Americans for Freedom.

Four years later, Wallace mobilized enough support as a third-party candidate to win five states. And in 1972, once again as a Democrat, Wallace racked up primary wins in both the North and the South before an assassination attempt forced him out of the race. Growing backlashes against school desegregation and feminism added further fuel to the fire on the right, paving the way for the conservative ascendancy of the 1980s.

By the early 1990s, the neo-Nazi and Klansman David Duke had won a seat in the Louisiana Legislature and nearly three-fifths of the white vote in campaigns for governor and senator. Pat Buchanan, seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 1992, called for “America First,” the fortification of the border (a “Buchanan fence”), and a culture war for the “soul” of America, while the National Rifle Association became a powerful force on the right and in the Republican Party.

When Mr. Trump questioned Barack Obama’s legitimacy to serve as president, a project that quickly became known as “birtherism,” he made use of a Reconstruction-era racist trope that rejected the legitimacy of Black political rights and power. In so doing, Mr. Trump began to cement a coalition of aggrieved white voters. They were ready to push back against the nation’s growing cultural diversity — embodied by Mr. Obama — and the challenges they saw to traditional hierarchies of family, gender and race. They had much on which to build.

Back in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville, in “Democracy in America,” glimpsed the illiberal currents that already entangled the country’s politics. While he marveled at the “equality of conditions,” the fluidity of social life and the strength of republican institutions, he also worried about the “omnipotence of the majority.”

“What I find most repulsive in America is not the extreme freedom reigning there,” Tocqueville wrote, “but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny.” He pointed to communities “taking justice into their own hands,” and warned that “associations of plain citizens can compose very rich, influential, and powerful bodies, in other words, aristocratic bodies.” Lamenting their intellectual conformity, Tocqueville believed that if Americans ever gave up republican government, “they will pass rapidly on to despotism,” restricting “the sphere of political rights, taking some of them away in order to entrust them to a single man.”

The slide toward despotism that Tocqueville feared may be well underway, whatever the election’s outcome. Even if they try to fool themselves into thinking that Mr. Trump won’t follow through, millions of voters seem ready to entrust their rights to “a single man” who has announced his intent to use autocratic powers for retribution, repression, expulsion and misogyny.

Only by recognizing what we’re up against can we mount an effective campaign to protect our democracy, leaning on the important political struggles — abolitionism, antimonopoly, social democracy, human rights, civil rights, feminism — that have challenged illiberalism in the past and offer the vision and political pathways to guide us in the future.

Our biggest mistake would be to believe that we’re watching an exceptional departure in the country’s history. Because from the first, Mr. Trump has tapped into deep and ever-expanding illiberal roots. Illiberalism’s history is America’s history.

Steven Hahn is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at New York University and the author, most recently, of “ Illiberal America: a History .”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

The New Propaganda War

Autocrats in China, Russia, and elsewhere are now making common cause with MAGA Republicans to discredit liberalism and freedom around the world.

Listen to this article

Listen to more stories on curio

This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here .

On June 4 , 1989 , the Polish Communist Party held partially free elections, setting in motion a series of events that ultimately removed the Communists from power. Not long afterward, street protests calling for free speech, due process, accountability, and democracy brought about the end of the Communist regimes in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. Within a few years, the Soviet Union itself would no longer exist.

Also on June 4, 1989, the Chinese Communist Party ordered the military to remove thousands of students from Tiananmen Square. The students were calling for free speech, due process, accountability, and democracy. Soldiers arrested and killed demonstrators in Beijing and around the country. Later, they systematically tracked down the leaders of the protest movement and forced them to confess and recant. Some spent years in jail. Others managed to elude their pursuers and flee the country forever.

Explore the June 2024 Issue

Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

In the aftermath of these events, the Chinese concluded that the physical elimination of dissenters was insufficient. To prevent the democratic wave then sweeping across Central Europe from reaching East Asia, the Chinese Communist Party eventually set out to eliminate not just the people but the ideas that had motivated the protests. In the years to come, this would require policing what the Chinese people could see online.

Nobody believed that this would work. In 2000, President Bill Clinton told an audience at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies that it was impossible. “In the knowledge economy,” he said, “economic innovation and political empowerment, whether anyone likes it or not, will inevitably go hand in hand.” The transcript records the audience reactions:

“Now, there’s no question China has been trying to crack down on the internet.” ( Chuckles. ) “Good luck!” ( Laughter. ) “That’s sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.” ( Laughter. )

While we were still rhapsodizing about the many ways in which the internet could spread democracy, the Chinese were designing what’s become known as the Great Firewall of China . That method of internet management—which is in effect conversation management—contains many different elements, beginning with an elaborate system of blocks and filters that prevent internet users from seeing particular words and phrases. Among them, famously, are Tiananmen , 1989 , and June 4 , but there are many more. In 2000, a directive called “ Measures for Managing Internet Information Services ” prohibited an extraordinarily wide range of content, including anything that “endangers national security, divulges state secrets, subverts the government, undermines national unification,” and “is detrimental to the honor and interests of the state”—anything, in other words, that the authorities didn’t like.

From the May 2022 issue: There is no liberal world order

The Chinese regime also combined online tracking methods with other tools of repression, including security cameras, police inspections, and arrests. In Xinjiang province, where China’s Uyghur Muslim population is concentrated, the state has forced people to install “nanny apps” that can scan phones for forbidden phrases and pick up unusual behavior: Anyone who downloads a virtual private network, anyone who stays offline altogether, and anyone whose home uses too much electricity (which could be evidence of a secret houseguest) can arouse suspicion. Voice-recognition technology and even DNA swabs are used to monitor where Uyghurs walk, drive, and shop. With every new breakthrough, with every AI advance, China has gotten closer to its holy grail: a system that can eliminate not just the words democracy and Tiananmen from the internet, but the thinking that leads people to become democracy activists or attend public protests in real life.

But along the way, the Chinese regime discovered a deeper problem: Surveillance, regardless of sophistication, provides no guarantees. During the coronavirus pandemic, the Chinese government imposed controls more severe than most of its citizens had ever experienced. Millions of people were locked into their homes. Untold numbers entered government quarantine camps. Yet the lockdown also produced the angriest and most energetic Chinese protests in many years. Young people who had never attended a demonstration and had no memory of Tiananmen gathered in the streets of Beijing and Shanghai in the autumn of 2022 to talk about freedom. In Xinjiang, where lockdowns were the longest and harshest, and where repression is most complete, people came out in public and sang the Chinese national anthem , emphasizing one line: “Rise up, those who refuse to be slaves!” Clips of their performance circulated widely, presumably because the spyware and filters didn’t identify the national anthem as dissent.

Even in a state where surveillance is almost total, the experience of tyranny and injustice can radicalize people. Anger at arbitrary power will always lead someone to start thinking about another system, a better way to run society. The strength of these demonstrations, and the broader anger they reflected, was enough to spook the Chinese Communist Party into lifting the quarantine and allowing the virus to spread. The deaths that resulted were preferable to public anger and protest.

Like the demonstrations against President Vladimir Putin in Russia that began in 2011, the 2014 street protests in Venezuela , and the 2019 Hong Kong protests , the 2022 protests in China help explain something else: why autocratic regimes have slowly turned their repressive mechanisms outward, into the democratic world. If people are naturally drawn to the image of human rights, to the language of democracy, to the dream of freedom, then those concepts have to be poisoned. That requires more than surveillance, more than close observation of the population, more than a political system that defends against liberal ideas. It also requires an offensive plan: a narrative that damages both the idea of democracy everywhere in the world and the tools to deliver it.

On February 24, 2022, as Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, fantastical tales of biological warfare began surging across the internet. Russian officials solemnly declared that secret U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine had been conducting experiments with bat viruses and claimed that U.S. officials had confessed to manipulating “dangerous pathogens.” The story was unfounded, not to say ridiculous, and was repeatedly debunked .

Nevertheless, an American Twitter account with links to the QAnon conspiracy network—@WarClandestine—began tweeting about the nonexistent biolabs , racking up thousands of retweets and views. The hashtag #biolab started trending on Twitter and reached more than 9 million views. Even after the account—later revealed to belong to a veteran of the Army National Guard—was suspended, people continued to post screenshots. A version of the story appeared on the Infowars website created by Alex Jones, best known for promoting conspiracy theories about the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and harassing families of the victims. Tucker Carlson, then still hosting a show on Fox News, played clips of a Russian general and a Chinese spokesperson repeating the biolab fantasy and demanded that the Biden administration “stop lying and [tell] us what’s going on here.”

Chinese state media also leaned hard into the story. A foreign-ministry spokesperson declared that the U.S. controlled 26 biolabs in Ukraine: “Russia has found during its military operations that the U.S. uses these facilities to conduct bio-military plans.” Xinhua, a Chinese state news agency, ran multiple headlines: “U.S.-Led Biolabs Pose Potential Threats to People of Ukraine and Beyond,” “Russia Urges U.S. to Explain Purpose of Biological Labs in Ukraine,” and so on. U.S. diplomats publicly refuted these fabrications. Nevertheless, the Chinese continued to spread them. So did the scores of Asian, African, and Latin American media outlets that have content-sharing agreements with Chinese state media. So did Telesur, the Venezuelan network; Press TV, the Iranian network; and Russia Today, in Spanish and Arabic, as well as on many Russia Today–linked websites around the world.

This joint propaganda effort worked. Globally, it helped undermine the U.S.-led effort to create solidarity with Ukraine and enforce sanctions against Russia. Inside the U.S., it helped undermine the Biden administration’s effort to consolidate American public opinion in support of providing aid to Ukraine. According to one poll, a quarter of Americans believed the biolabs conspiracy theory to be true. After the invasion, Russia and China—with, again, help from Venezuela, Iran, and far-right Europeans and Americans—successfully created an international echo chamber. Anyone inside this echo chamber heard the biolab conspiracy theory many times, from different sources, each one repeating and building on the others to create the impression of veracity. They also heard false descriptions of Ukrainians as Nazis, along with claims that Ukraine is a puppet state run by the CIA, and that NATO started the war.

Outside this echo chamber, few even know it exists. At a dinner in Munich in February 2023, I found myself seated across from a European diplomat who had just returned from Africa. He had met with some students there and had been shocked to discover how little they knew about the war in Ukraine, and how much of what they did know was wrong. They had repeated the Russian claims that the Ukrainians are Nazis, blamed NATO for the invasion, and generally used the same kind of language that can be heard every night on the Russian evening news. The diplomat was mystified. He grasped for explanations: Maybe the legacy of colonialism explained the spread of these conspiracy theories, or Western neglect of the global South, or the long shadow of the Cold War.

But the story of how Africans—as well as Latin Americans, Asians, and indeed many Europeans and Americans—have come to spout Russian propaganda about Ukraine is not primarily a story of European colonial history, Western policy, or the Cold War. Rather, it involves China’s systematic efforts to buy or influence both popular and elite audiences around the world; carefully curated Russian propaganda campaigns, some open, some clandestine, some amplified by the American and European far right; and other autocracies using their own networks to promote the same language.

To be fair to the European diplomat, the convergence of what had been disparate authoritarian influence projects is still new. Russian information-laundering and Chinese propaganda have long had different goals. Chinese propagandists mostly stayed out of the democratic world’s politics, except to promote Chinese achievements, Chinese economic success, and Chinese narratives about Tibet or Hong Kong. Their efforts in Africa and Latin America tended to feature dull, unwatchable announcements of investments and state visits. Russian efforts were more aggressive—sometimes in conjunction with the far right or the far left in the democratic world—and aimed to distort debates and elections in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and elsewhere. Still, they often seemed unfocused, as if computer hackers were throwing spaghetti at the wall, just to see which crazy story might stick. Venezuela and Iran were fringe players, not real sources of influence.

Slowly, though, these autocracies have come together, not around particular stories, but around a set of ideas, or rather in opposition to a set of ideas. Transparency, for example. And rule of law. And democracy. They have heard language about those ideas—which originate in the democratic world—coming from their own dissidents, and have concluded that they are dangerous to their regimes. Their own rhetoric makes this clear. In 2013, as Chinese President Xi Jinping was beginning his rise to power, an internal Chinese memo, known enigmatically as Document No. 9 —or, more formally, as the Communiqué on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere—listed “seven perils” faced by the Chinese Communist Party. “Western constitutional democracy” led the list, followed by “universal human rights,” “media independence,” “judicial independence,” and “civic participation.” The document concluded that “Western forces hostile to China,” together with dissidents inside the country, “are still constantly infiltrating the ideological sphere,” and instructed party leaders to push back against these ideas wherever they found them, especially online, inside China and around the world.

From the December 2021 issue: The bad guys are winning

Since at least 2004, the Russians have been focused on the same convergence of internal and external ideological threats. That was the year Ukrainians staged a popular revolt, known as the Orange Revolution —the name came from the orange T-shirts and flags of the protesters—against a clumsy attempt to steal a presidential election. The angry intervention of the Ukrainian public into what was meant to have been a carefully orchestrated victory for Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian candidate directly supported by Putin himself, profoundly unnerved the Russians. This was especially the case because a similarly unruly protest movement in Georgia had brought a pro-European politician, Mikheil Saakashvili, to power the year before.

Shaken by those two events, Putin put the bogeyman of “color revolution” at the center of Russian propaganda. Civic protest movements are now always described as color revolutions in Russia, and as the work of outsiders. Popular opposition leaders are always said to be puppets of foreign governments. Anti-corruption and prodemocracy slogans are linked to chaos and instability wherever they are used, whether in Tunisia, Syria, or the United States. In 2011, a year of mass protest against a manipulated election in Russia itself, Putin bitterly described the Orange Revolution as a “well-tested scheme for destabilizing society,” and he accused the Russian opposition of “transferring this practice to Russian soil,” where he feared a similar popular uprising intended to remove him from power.

Putin was wrong—no “scheme” had been “transferred.” Public discontent in Russia simply had no way to express itself except through street protest, and Putin’s opponents had no legal means to remove him from power. Like so many other people around the world, they talked about democracy and human rights because they recognized that these concepts represented their best hope for achieving justice, and freedom from autocratic power. The protests that led to democratic transitions in the Philippines, Taiwan, South Africa, South Korea, and Mexico; the “people’s revolutions” that washed across Central and Eastern Europe in 1989; the Arab Spring in 2011; and, yes, the color revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia—all were begun by those who had suffered injustice at the hands of the state, and who seized on the language of freedom and democracy to propose an alternative.

This is the core problem for autocracies: The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and others all know that the language of transparency, accountability, justice, and democracy appeals to some of their citizens, as it does to many people who live in dictatorships. Even the most sophisticated surveillance can’t wholly suppress it. The very ideas of democracy and freedom must be discredited—especially in the places where they have historically flourished.

In the 20th century, Communist Party propaganda was overwhelming and inspiring, or at least it was meant to be. The future it portrayed was shiny and idealized, a vision of clean factories, abundant produce, and healthy tractor drivers with large muscles and square jaws. The architecture was designed to overpower, the music to intimidate, the public spectacles to awe. In theory, citizens were meant to feel enthusiasm, inspiration, and hope. In practice, this kind of propaganda backfired, because people could compare what they saw on posters and in movies with a far more impoverished reality.

A few autocracies still portray themselves to their citizens as model states. The North Koreans continue to hold colossal military parades with elaborate gymnastics displays and huge portraits of their leader, very much in the Stalinist style. But most modern authoritarians have learned from the mistakes of the previous century. Freedom House, a nonprofit that advocates for democracy around the world, lists 56 countries as “not free.” Most don’t offer their fellow citizens a vision of utopia, and don’t inspire them to build a better world. Instead, they teach people to be cynical and passive, apathetic and afraid, because there is no better world to build. Their goal is to persuade their own people to stay out of politics, and above all to convince them that there is no democratic alternative: Our state may be corrupt, but everyone else is corrupt too. You may not like our leader, but the others are worse. You may not like our society, but at least we are strong. The democratic world is weak, degenerate, divided, dying.

Instead of portraying China as the perfect society, modern Chinese propaganda seeks to inculcate nationalist pride, based on China’s real experience of economic development, and to promote a Beijing model of progress through dictatorship and “order” that’s superior to the chaos and violence of democracy . Chinese media mocked the laxity of the American response to the pandemic with an animated film that ended with the Statue of Liberty on an intravenous drip . China’s Global Times wrote that Chinese people were mocking the January 6 insurrection as “karma” and “retribution”: “Seeing such scenarios,” the publication’s then-editor wrote in an op-ed , “many Chinese will naturally recall that Nancy Pelosi once praised the violence of Hong Kong protesters as ‘a beautiful sight to behold.’ ” (Pelosi, of course, had praised peaceful demonstrators , not violence.) The Chinese are told that these forces of chaos are out to disrupt their own lives, and they are encouraged to fight against them in a “people’s war” against foreign influence.

Read: I watched Russian TV so you don’t have to

Russians, although they hear very little about what happens in their own towns and cities, receive similar messages about the decline of places they don’t know and have mostly never visited: America, France, Britain, Sweden, Poland—countries apparently filled with degeneracy, hypocrisy, and Russophobia . A study of Russian television from 2014 to 2017 found that negative news about Europe appeared on the three main Russian channels, all state-controlled, an average of 18 times a day. Some of the stories were obviously invented ( European governments are stealing children from straight families and giving them to gay couples!  ), but even the true ones were cherry-picked to support the idea that daily life in Europe is frightening and chaotic, that Europeans are weak and immoral, and that the European Union is aggressive and interventionist. If anything, the portrayal of America has been more dramatic. Putin himself has displayed a surprisingly intimate acquaintance with American culture wars about transgender rights, and mockingly sympathized with people who he says have been “canceled.”

The goal is clear: to prevent Russians from identifying with Europe the way they once did, and to build alliances between Putin’s domestic audience and his supporters in Europe and North America, where some naive conservatives (or perhaps cynical, well-paid conservatives) seek to convince their followers that Russia is a “white Christian state.” In reality, Russia has very low church attendance, legal abortion, and a multiethnic population containing millions of Muslim citizens and migrants. The autonomous region of Chechnya, which is part of the Russian Federation, is governed, in practice, by elements of Sharia law . The Russian state harasses and represses many forms of religion outside the state-sanctioned Russian Orthodox Church, including evangelical Protestantism. Nevertheless, among the slogans shouted by white nationalists marching in the infamous Charlottesville, Virginia, demonstration in 2017 was “ Russia is our friend .” Putin sends periodic messages to this constituency: “I uphold the traditional approach that a woman is a woman, a man is a man, a mother is a mother, and a father is a father,” he told a press conference in December 2021, almost as if this “traditional approach” would be justification for invading Ukraine.

Michael Carpenter: Russia is co-opting angry young men

This manipulation of the strong emotions around gay rights and feminism has been widely copied throughout the autocratic world, often as a means of defending against criticism of the regime. Yoweri Museveni, who has been the president of Uganda for more than three decades, passed an “anti-homosexuality” bill in 2014, instituting a life sentence for gay people who have sex or marry and criminalizing the “promotion” of a homosexual lifestyle. By picking a fight over gay rights, he was able to consolidate his supporters at home while neutralizing foreign criticisms of his regime, describing them as “social imperialism”: “Outsiders cannot dictate to us; this is our country,” he declared. Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, also ducks discussion of Hungarian corruption by hiding behind a culture war. He pretends that ongoing tension between his government and the U.S. ambassador to Hungary concerns religion and gender: During Tucker Carlson’s recent visit to Hungary , Carlson declared that the Biden administration “hates” Hungary because “it’s a Christian country,” when in fact it is Orbán’s deep financial and political ties to Russia and China that have badly damaged American-Hungarian relations.

The new authoritarians also have a different attitude toward reality. When Soviet leaders lied, they tried to make their falsehoods seem real. They became angry when anyone accused them of lying. But in Putin’s Russia, Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, and Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela, politicians and television personalities play a different game. They lie constantly, blatantly, obviously. But they don’t bother to offer counterarguments when their lies are exposed. After Russian-controlled forces shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014, the Russian government reacted not only with a denial, but with multiple stories, plausible and implausible: It blamed the Ukrainian army, and the CIA, and a nefarious plot in which dead people were placed on a plane in order to fake a crash and discredit Russia. This tactic—the so-called fire hose of falsehoods—ultimately produces not outrage but nihilism. Given so many explanations, how can you know what actually happened? What if you just can’t know? If you don’t know what happened, you’re not likely to join a great movement for democracy, or to listen when anyone speaks about positive political change. Instead, you are not going to participate in any politics at all.

Anne Applebaum: The American face of authoritarian propaganda

Fear, cynicism, nihilism, and apathy, coupled with disgust and disdain for democracy: This is the formula that modern autocrats, with some variations, sell to their citizens and to foreigners, all with the aim of destroying what they call “American hegemony.” In service of this idea, Russia, a colonial power, paints itself as a leader of the non-Western civilizations in what the analyst Ivan Klyszcz calls their struggle for “ messianic multipolarity ,” a battle against “the West’s imposition of ‘decadent,’ ‘globalist’ values.” In September 2022, when Putin held a ceremony to mark his illegal annexation of southern and eastern Ukraine, he claimed that he was protecting Russia from the “satanic” West and “perversions that lead to degradation and extinction.” He did not speak of the people he had tortured or the Ukrainian children he had kidnapped. A year later, Putin told a gathering in Sochi: “We are now fighting not just for Russia’s freedom but for the freedom of the whole world. We can frankly say that the dictatorship of one hegemon is becoming decrepit. We see it, and everyone sees it now. It is getting out of control and is simply dangerous for others.” The language of “hegemony” and “multipolarity” is now part of Chinese, Iranian, and Venezuelan narratives too.

In truth, Russia is a genuine danger to its neighbors, which is why most of them are re-arming and preparing to fight against a new colonial occupation. The irony is even greater in African countries like Mali, where Russian mercenaries from the Wagner Group have helped keep a military dictatorship in power, reportedly by conducting summary executions, committing atrocities against civilians, and looting property. In Mali, as in Ukraine, the battle against Western decadence means that white Russian thugs brutally terrorize people with impunity.

And yet Mali Actu, a pro-Russian website in Mali, solemnly explains to its readers that “in a world that is more and more multipolar, Africa will play a more and more important role.” Mali Actu is not alone; it’s just a small part of a propaganda network, created by the autocracies, that is now visible all over the world.

The infrastructure of antidemocratic propaganda takes many forms, some overt and some covert, some aimed at the public and some aimed at elites. The United Front, the fulcrum of the Chinese Communist Party’s most important influence strategy, seeks to shape perceptions of China around the world by creating educational and exchange programs, controlling Chinese exile communities, building Chinese chambers of commerce, and courting anyone willing to be a de facto spokesperson for China. The Confucius Institutes are probably the best-known elite Chinese influence project. Originally perceived as benign cultural bodies not unlike the Goethe-Institut, run by the German government, and the Alliance Française, they were welcomed by many universities because they provided cheap or even free Chinese-language classes and professors. Over time, the institutes aroused suspicion, policing Chinese students at American universities by restricting open discussions of Tibet and Taiwan, and in some cases altering the teaching of Chinese history and politics to suit Chinese narratives. They have now been mostly disbanded in the United States. But they are flourishing in many other places, including Africa, where there are several dozen.

These subtler operations are augmented by China’s enormous investment in international media. The Xinhua wire service, the China Global Television Network, China Radio International, and China Daily all receive significant state financing , have social-media accounts in multiple languages and regions, and sell, share, or otherwise promote their content. These Chinese outlets cover the entire world, and provide feeds of slickly produced news and video segments to their partners at low prices, sometimes for free, which makes them more than competitive with reputable Western newswires, such as Reuters and the Associated Press. Scores of news organizations in Europe and Asia use Chinese content, as do many in Africa, from Kenya and Nigeria to Egypt and Zambia. Chinese media maintain a regional hub in Nairobi, where they hire prominent local journalists and produce content in African languages. Building this media empire has been estimated to cost billions of dollars a year.

For the moment, viewership of many of these Chinese-owned channels remains low; their output can be predictable, even boring. But more popular forms of Chinese television are gradually becoming available. StarTimes, a satellite-television company that is tightly linked to the Chinese government, launched in Africa in 2008 and now has 13 million television subscribers in more than 30 African countries. StarTimes is cheap for consumers, costing just a few dollars a month. It prioritizes Chinese content—not just news but kung-fu movies, soap operas, and Chinese Super League football, with the dialogue and commentary all translated into Hausa, Swahili, and other African languages. In this way, even entertainment can carry China-positive messages.

This subtler shift is the real goal: to have the Chinese point of view appear in the local press, with local bylines. Chinese propagandists call this strategy “borrowing boats to reach the sea,” and it can be achieved in many ways. Unlike Western governments, China doesn’t think of propaganda, censorship, diplomacy, and media as separate activities. Legal pressure on news organizations, online trolling operations aimed at journalists, cyberattacks—all of these can be deployed as part of a single operation designed to promulgate or undermine a given narrative. China also offers training courses or stipends for local journalists across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, sometimes providing phones and laptops in exchange for what the regime hopes will be favorable coverage.

The Chinese also cooperate, both openly and discreetly, with the media outlets of other autocracies. Telesur, a Hugo Chávez project launched in 2005, is headquartered in Caracas and led by Venezuela in partnership with Cuba and Nicaragua. Selectively culled bits of foreign news make it onto Telesur from its partners, including headlines that presumably have limited appeal in Latin America: “US-Armenia Joint Military Drills Undermine Regional Stability,” for example, and “Russia Has No Expansionist Plans in Europe.” Both of these stories, from 2023, were lifted directly from the Xinhua wire.

Iran, for its part, offers HispanTV, the Spanish-language version of Press TV, the Iranian international service. HispanTV leans heavily into open anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial: One March 2020 headline declared that the “New Coronavirus Is the Result of a Zionist Plot.” Spain banned HispanTV and Google blocked it from its YouTube and Gmail accounts, but the service is easily available across Latin America, just as Al-Alam, the Arabic version of Press TV, is widely available in the Middle East. After the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, an international group dedicated to fighting disinformation, found that Iran was creating additional hacking groups to target digital, physical, and electoral infrastructure in Israel (where it went after electoral rolls) and the United States. In the future, these hacking operations may be combined with propaganda campaigns.

RT—Russia Today—has a bigger profile than either Telesur or Press TV; in Africa, it has close links to China . Following the invasion of Ukraine, some satellite networks dropped RT. But China’s StarTimes satellite picked it up, and RT immediately began building offices and relationships across Africa, especially in countries run by autocrats who echo its anti-Western, anti-LGBTQ messages, and who appreciate its lack of critical or investigative reporting.

RT—like Press TV, Telesur, and even CGTN—also functions as a production facility, a source of video clips that can be spread online, repurposed and reused in targeted campaigns. Americans got a firsthand view of how the clandestine versions work in 2016, when the Internet Research Agency—now disbanded but based then in St. Petersburg and led by the late Yevgeny Prigozhin, more famous as the mercenary boss of the Wagner Group who staged an aborted march on Moscow—pumped out fake material via fake Facebook and Twitter accounts, designed to confuse American voters. Examples ranged from virulently anti-immigration accounts aimed at benefiting Donald Trump to fake Black Lives Matter accounts that attacked Hillary Clinton from the left.

Since 2016, these tactics have been applied across the globe. The Xinhua and RT offices in Africa and around the world—along with Telesur and HispanTV—create stories, slogans, memes, and narratives promoting the worldview of the autocracies; these, in turn, are repeated and amplified in many countries, translated into many languages, and reshaped for many local markets. The material produced is mostly unsophisticated, but it is inexpensive and can change quickly, according to the needs of the moment. After the October 7 Hamas attack, for example, official and unofficial Russian sources immediately began putting out both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic material, and messages calling American and Western support for Ukraine hypocritical in light of the Gaza conflict. The data-analytics company Alto Intelligence found posts smearing both Ukrainians and Israelis as “Nazis,” part of what appears to be a campaign to bring far-left and far-right communities closer together in opposition to U.S.-allied democracies. Anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas messages also increased inside China, as well as on Chinese-linked accounts around the world. Joshua Eisenman, a professor at Notre Dame and the author of a new book on China’s relations with Africa, told me that during a recent trip to Beijing, he was astonished by how quickly the previous Chinese line on the Middle East—“China-Israel relations are stronger than ever”—changed. “It was a complete 180 in just a few days.”

Not that everyone hearing these messages will necessarily know where they come from, because they often appear in forums that conceal their origins. Most people probably did not hear the American-biolabs conspiracy theory on a television news program, for example. Instead, they heard it thanks to organizations like Pressenza and Yala News. Pressenza, a website founded in Milan and relocated to Ecuador in 2014, publishes in eight languages, describes itself as “an international news agency dedicated to news about peace and nonviolence,” and featured an article on biolabs in Ukraine. According to the U.S. State Department, Pressenza is part of a project, run by three Russian companies, that planned to create articles in Moscow and then translate them for these “native” sites, following Chinese practice, to make them seem “local.” Pressenza denied the allegations; one of its journalists, Oleg Yasinsky, who says he is of Ukrainian origin, responded by denouncing America’s “planetary propaganda machine” and quoting Che Guevara.

Like Pressenza, Yala News also markets itself as independent. This U.K.-registered, Arabic-language news operation provides slickly produced videos, including celebrity interviews, to its 3 million followers every day. In March 2022, as the biolabs allegation was being promoted by other outlets, the site posted a video that echoed one of the most sensational versions: Ukraine was planning to use migratory birds as a delivery vehicle for bioweapons, infecting the birds and then sending them into Russia to spread disease.

Yala did not invent this ludicrous tale: Russian state media, such as the Sputnik news agency, published it in Russian first, followed by Sputnik’s Arabic website and RT Arabic. Russia’s United Nations ambassador addressed the UN Security Council about the biobird scandal, warning of the “real biological danger to the people in European countries, which can result from an uncontrolled spread of bioagents from Ukraine.” In an April 2022 interview in Kyiv , Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told The Atlantic ’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, and me that the biobirds story reminded him of a Monty Python sketch. If Yala were truly an “independent” publication, as it describes itself, it would have fact-checked this story, which, like the other biolab conspiracies, was widely debunked.

Read: Anne Applebaum and Jeffrey Goldberg interview Volodymyr Zelensky

But Yala News is not a news organization at all. As the BBC has reported , it’s an information laundromat, a site that exists to spread and propagate material produced by RT and other Russian facilities. Yala News has posted claims that the Russian massacre of Ukrainian civilians at Bucha was staged, that Zelensky appeared drunk on television, and that Ukrainian soldiers were running away from the front lines. Although the company is registered to an address in London—a mail drop shared by 65,000 other companies—its “news team” is based in a suburb of Damascus. The company’s CEO is a Syrian businessman based in Dubai who, when asked by the BBC, insisted on the organization’s “impartiality.”

Another strange actor in this field is RRN—the company’s name is an acronym, originally for Reliable Russian News, later changed to Reliable Recent News. Created in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, RRN, part of a bigger information-laundering operation known to investigators as Doppelganger, is primarily a “typosquatter”: a company that registers domain names that look similar to real media domain names—Reuters.cfd instead of Reuters.com, for example—as well as websites with names that sound authentic (like Notre Pays , or “Our Country”) but are created to deceive. RRN is prolific. During its short existence, it has created more than 300 sites targeting Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. Links to these sites are then used to make Facebook, Twitter, and other social-media posts appear credible. When someone is quickly scrolling, they might not notice that a headline links to a fake Spiegel.pro website, say, rather than to the authentic German-magazine website Spiegel.de.

Doppelganger’s efforts, run by a clutch of companies in Russia, have varied widely, and seem to have included fake NATO press releases , with the same fonts and design as the genuine releases, “revealing” that NATO leaders were planning to deploy Ukrainian paramilitary troops to France to quell pension protests. In November, operatives who the French government believes are linked to Doppelganger spray-painted Stars of David around Paris and posted them on social media, hoping to amplify French divisions over the Gaza war. Russian operatives built a social-media network to spread the false stories and the photographs of anti-Semitic graffiti. The goal is to make sure that the people encountering this content have little clue as to who created it, or where or why.

Russia and China are not the only parties in this space. Both real and automated social-media accounts geolocated to Venezuela played a small role in the 2018 Mexican presidential election, for example, boosting the campaign of Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Notable were two kinds of messages: those that promoted images of Mexican violence and chaos—images that might make people feel they need an autocrat to restore order—and those that were angrily opposed to NAFTA and the U.S. more broadly. This tiny social-media investment must have been deemed successful. After he became president, López Obrador engaged in the same kinds of smear campaigns as unelected politicians in autocracies, empowered and corrupted the military, undermined the independence of the judiciary, and otherwise degraded Mexican democracy. In office, he has promoted Russian narratives about the war in Ukraine along with Chinese narratives about the repression of the Uyghurs. Mexico’s relationship with the United States has become more difficult—and that, surely, was part of the point.

None of these efforts would succeed without local actors who share the autocratic world’s goals. Russia, China, and Venezuela did not invent anti-Americanism in Mexico. They did not invent Catalan separatism, to name another movement that both Russian and Venezuelan social-media accounts supported, or the German far right, or France’s Marine Le Pen. All they do is amplify existing people and movements—whether anti-LGBTQ, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-Ukrainian, or, above all, antidemocratic. Sometimes they provide a social-media echo. Sometimes they employ reporters and spokespeople. Sometimes they use the media networks they built for this purpose. And sometimes, they just rely on Americans to do it for them.

Here is a difficult truth: A part of the American political spectrum is not merely a passive recipient of the combined authoritarian narratives that come from Russia, China, and their ilk, but an active participant in creating and spreading them. Like the leaders of those countries, the American MAGA right also wants Americans to believe that their democracy is degenerate, their elections illegitimate, their civilization dying. The MAGA movement’s leaders also have an interest in pumping nihilism and cynicism into the brains of their fellow citizens, and in convincing them that nothing they see is true. Their goals are so similar that it is hard to distinguish between the online American alt-right and its foreign amplifiers, who have multiplied since the days when this was solely a Russian project. Tucker Carlson has even promoted the fear of a color revolution in America, lifting the phrase directly from Russian propaganda. The Chinese have joined in too: Earlier this year, a group of Chinese accounts that had previously been posting pro-Chinese material in Mandarin began posting in English, using MAGA symbols and attacking President Joe Biden. They showed fake images of Biden in prison garb, made fun of his age, and called him a satanist pedophile. One Chinese-linked account reposted an RT video repeating the lie that Biden had sent a neo-Nazi criminal to fight in Ukraine. Alex Jones’s reposting of the lie on social media reached some 400,000 people.

Given that both Russian and Chinese actors now blend in so easily with the MAGA messaging operation, it is hardly surprising that the American government has difficulty responding to the newly interlinked autocratic propaganda network. American-government-backed foreign broadcasters—Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Farda, Radio Martí—still exist, but neither their mandate nor their funding has changed much in recent years. The intelligence agencies continue to observe what happens—there is a Foreign Malign Influence Center under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—but they are by definition not part of the public debate. The only relatively new government institution fighting antidemocratic propaganda is the Global Engagement Center, but it is in the State Department, and its mandate is to focus on authoritarian propaganda outside the United States. Established in 2016, it replaced the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, which sought to foil the Islamic State and other jihadist groups that were recruiting young people online. In 2014–15, as the scale of Russian disinformation campaigns in Europe were becoming better known, Congress designated the GEC to deal with Russian as well as Chinese, Iranian, and other propaganda campaigns around the world—although not, again, inside the United States. Throughout the Trump administration, the organization languished under the direction of a president who himself repeated Russian propaganda lines during the 2016 campaign—“Obama founded ISIS,” for example, and “Hillary will start World War III.”

Today the GEC is run by James Rubin, a former State Department spokesperson from the Bill Clinton era. It employs 125 people and has a budget of $61 million—hardly a match for the many billions that China and Russia spend building their media networks. But it is beginning to find its footing, handing out small grants to international groups that track and reveal foreign disinformation operations. It’s now specializing in identifying covert propaganda campaigns before they begin, with the help of U.S. intelligence agencies. Rubin calls this “prebunking” and describes it as a kind of “inoculation”: “If journalists and governments know that this is coming, then when it comes, they will recognize it.”

The revelation in November of the Russian ties to seemingly native left-wing websites in Latin America, including Pressenza, was one such effort. More recently, the GEC published a report on the African Initiative, an agency that had planned a huge campaign to discredit Western health philanthropy, starting with rumors about a new virus supposedly spread by mosquitoes. The idea was to smear Western doctors, clinics, and philanthropists, and to build a climate of distrust around Western medicine, much as Russian efforts helped build a climate of distrust around Western vaccines during the pandemic. The GEC identified the Russian leader of the project, Artem Sergeyevich Kureyev; noted that several employees had come to the African Initiative from the Wagner Group; and located two of its offices, in Mali and Burkina Faso. Rubin and others subsequently spent a lot of time talking with regional reporters about the African Initiative’s plans so that “people will recognize them” when they launch. Dozens of articles in English, Spanish, and other languages have described these operations, as have thousands of social-media posts. Eventually, the goal is to create an alliance of other nations who also want to share information about planned and ongoing information operations so that everyone knows they are coming.

It’s a great idea, but no equivalent agency functions inside the United States. Some social-media companies have made purely voluntary efforts to remove foreign-government propaganda, sometimes after being tipped off by the U.S. government but mostly on their own. In the U.S., Facebook created a security-policy unit that still regularly announces when it discovers “coordinated inauthentic behavior”—meaning accounts that are automated and/or evidently part of a planned operation from (usually) Russian, Iranian, or Chinese sources—and then takes down the posts. It is difficult for outsiders to monitor this activity, because the company restricts access to its data, and even controls the tools that can be used to examine the data. In March, Meta announced that by August, it would phase out CrowdTangle, a tool used to analyze Facebook data, and replace it with a tool that analysts fear will be harder to use.

X (formerly Twitter) also used to look for foreign propaganda activity, but under the ownership of Elon Musk, that voluntary effort has been badly weakened. The new blue-check “verification” process allows users—including anonymous, pro-Russian users—to pay to have their posts amplified; the old “safety team” no longer exists. The result: After the collapse of the Kakhovka dam in Ukraine last summer, a major environmental and humanitarian disaster caused by Russian bombing over many weeks, the false narrative that Ukraine had destroyed it appeared hundreds of thousands of times on X. After the ISIS terrorist attack on a concert hall in Moscow in March, David Sacks, the former PayPal entrepreneur and a close associate of Musk’s, posted on X, with no evidence, that “if the Ukrainian government was behind the terrorist attack, as looks increasingly likely, the U.S. must renounce it.” His completely unfounded post was viewed 2.5 million times. This spring, some Republican congressional leaders finally began speaking about the Russian propaganda that had “infected” their base and their colleagues. Most of that “Russian propaganda” is not coming from inside Russia.

Over the past several years, universities and think tanks have used their own data analytics to try to identify inauthentic networks on the largest websites—but they are also now meeting resistance from MAGA-affiliated Republican politicians. In 2020, teams at Stanford University and the University of Washington, together with the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council and Graphika, a company that specializes in social-media analytics, decided to join forces to monitor false election information. Renée DiResta, one of the leaders of what became the Election Integrity Partnership, told me that an early concern was Russian and Chinese campaigns. DiResta assumed that these foreign interventions wouldn’t matter much, but she thought it would be useful and academically interesting to understand their scope. “Lo and behold,” she said, “the entity that becomes the most persistent in alleging that American elections are fraudulent, fake, rigged, and everything else turns out to be the president of the United States.” The Election Integrity Partnership tracked election rumors coming from across the political spectrum, but observed that the MAGA right was far more prolific and significant than any other source.

The Election Integrity Partnership was not organized or directed by the U.S. government. It occasionally reached out to platforms, but had no power to compel them to act, DiResta told me. Nevertheless, the project became the focus of a complicated MAGA-world conspiracy theory about alleged government suppression of free speech, and it led to legal and personal attacks on many of those involved. The project has been smeared and mischaracterized by some of the journalists attached to Musk’s “Twitter Files” investigation , and by Representative Jim Jordan’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. A series of lawsuits alleging that the U.S. government sought to suppress conservative speech, including one launched by Missouri and Louisiana that has now reached the Supreme Court, has effectively tried to silence organizations that investigate both domestic and foreign disinformation campaigns, overt and covert. To state baldly what is happening: The Republican Party’s right wing is actively harassing legitimate, good-faith efforts to track the production and dissemination of autocratic disinformation here in the United States.

Over time, the attack on the Election Integrity Partnership has itself acquired some of the characteristics of a classic information-laundering operation. The most notorious example concerns a reference, on page 183 of the project’s final post-2020-election report, to the 21,897,364 tweets gathered after the election, in an effort to catalog the most viral false rumors. That simple statement of the size of the database has been twisted into another false and yet constantly repeated rumor: the spurious claim that the Department of Homeland Security somehow conspired with the Election Integrity Partnership to censor 22 million tweets. This never happened, and yet DiResta said that “this nonsense about the 22 million tweets pops up constantly as evidence of the sheer volume of our duplicity”; it has even appeared in the Congressional Record .

The same tactics have been used against the Global Engagement Center. In 2021, the GEC gave a grant to another organization, the Global Disinformation Index, which helped develop a technical tool to track online campaigns in East Asia and Europe. For a completely unrelated, separately funded project, the Global Disinformation Index also conducted a study, aimed at advertisers, that identified websites at risk for publishing false stories. Two conservative organizations, finding their names on that latter list, sued the GEC, although it had nothing to do with creating the list. Musk posted, again without any evidence, “The worst offender in US government censorship & media manipulation is an obscure agency called GEC,” and that organization also became caught up in the endless whirlwind of conspiracy and congressional investigations.

As it happens, I was caught up in it too, because I was listed online as an “adviser” to the Global Disinformation Index, even though I had not spoken with anyone at the organization for several years and was not aware that it even had a website. A predictable, and wearisome, pattern followed: false accusations (no, I was not advising anyone to censor anyone) and the obligatory death threats. Of course, my experience was mild compared with the experience of DiResta, who has been accused of being, as she put it, “the head of a censorship-industrial complex that does not exist.”

These stories are symptomatic of a larger problem: Because the American extreme right and (more rarely) the extreme left benefit from the spread of antidemocratic narratives, they have an interest in silencing or hobbling any group that wants to stop, or even identify, foreign campaigns. Senator Mark Warner, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told me that “we are actually less prepared today than we were four years ago” for foreign attempts to influence the 2024 election. This is not only because authoritarian propaganda campaigns have become more sophisticated as they begin to use AI, or because “you obviously have a political environment here where there’s a lot more Americans who are more distrustful of all institutions.” It’s also because the lawsuits, threats, and smear tactics have chilled government, academic, and tech-company responses.

One could call this a secret authoritarian “plot” to preserve the ability to spread antidemocratic conspiracy theories, except that it’s not a secret. It’s all visible, right on the surface. Russia, China, and sometimes other state actors—Venezuela, Iran, Hungary—work with Americans to discredit democracy, to undermine the credibility of democratic leaders, to mock the rule of law. They do so with the goal of electing Trump, whose second presidency would damage the image of democracy around the world, as well as the stability of democracy in America, even further.

This article appears in the June 2024 print edition with the headline “Democracy Is Losing the Propaganda War.” Anne Applebaum’s new book, Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World , will be published in July.

​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

New poll outlines rural voter priorities, but party labels cloud results

President Joe Biden was in Wisconsin on Wednesday, touting plans for a new Microsoft data center. The visit comes amid new polling data in battleground states about what is on the minds of rural voters, with organizers noting surprising results.

The poll, released by the Rural Democracy Initiative, includes feedback from Wisconsin voters. Among respondents, 57% said they favored a more economic populist vision, with policies centered around lowering costs and raising incomes for the working class.

Patrick Toomey, researcher and partner of Breakthrough Campaigns, said the approach appears more popular than one often touted by GOP politicians.

"Just cutting taxes and getting rid of regulations is not going to do the most to help me in this economy," Toomey explained.

While economic policies aligned with Democrats, such as minimum-wage hikes, are favorable in this poll, many rural voters indicated they think Republicans are doing more for working people. Analysts said it shows Democrats have work to do to rebuild trust in these areas. Meanwhile, three-quarters of respondents either support the right to abortion or do not want the government interfering with decisions on reproductive health care.

Toomey acknowledged it will take some time for Democrats to re-connect with voters and it will not completely turn around in this election cycle. But he suggested it is not completely hopeless for the party to make gains in rural America ahead of November's vote.

"One of the key learnings here is that there are enough voters in rural areas of battleground states who are up for grabs to determine the outcome for 2024," Toomey reported.

He suggested if Democrats are savvy with their outreach, they might be able to convince rural populations they are pursuing policies voters have outlined as a top priority.

More than 1,700 voters in 10 states were part of the poll. As for Biden's appearance, it was at the same location as the failed Foxconn project announced by former President Donald Trump several years ago.

• value=""> Daily Local News (sent each weekday)
• value=""> WXPR News &amp; Notes (sent every few weeks)

Apple banned this app for years. It’s now America’s No. 1 iPhone app.

Antitrust crackdowns on Apple are already changing your iPhone for the better

The hottest iPhone app in America may owe its popularity to government crackdowns on Apple.

That app, Delta , lets you play old-school video games like “Super Mario Bros.” on an iPhone.

Apple had banned apps like it for years but un-banned them this month without much explanation. Delta’s creators say growing anti-monopoly pressures were responsible for Apple’s flip-flop.

I’m not into video games, and Delta isn’t for me. Even if you’re in the same boat, Delta shows the drawbacks of Apple’s 15 years of absolute power over iPhone apps.

Apple has made its official App Store an easy and mostly safe place for you to download apps and buy stuff from them. But Apple’s insistence on making all the rules about iPhone apps has also kept you from trying some imaginative technologies like Delta.

What else have you been missing?

That question is relevant now because courts and regulators, including in the United States , the European Union , South Korea , Britain and Japan , are trying to loosen Apple’s and Google’s control over apps to give you fresh ideas and reduce costs for in-app purchases.

I’ll explain more about Delta, why it might show that antitrust pressure is changing your iPhone for the better and how an alternative app future could work.

From banned to America’s top app

Delta is a type of software known as video game “emulators” that Apple had kept out. Die-hards still found workarounds to use emulators, which exist in a legal gray area.

Some game companies have said that emulators tread on their copyrights because people can use them to play pirated copies of games. (Emulators are more accessible for Android phones but they’ve been under a legal cloud.)

There are legitimate uses for emulators, including reviving games from your 1990s Nintendo 64 console to play on an iPhone.

Shira Ovide

The surprise was Apple’s April reversal of its emulator ban, as long as the emulators didn’t enable copyright theft.

Riley Testut has worked on emulators for more than a decade . Two weeks ago, he and co-founder Shane Gill got approval to make Delta available in the U.S. iPhone App Store.

Since then, it has consistently been the most downloaded free iPhone app in the country, according to Sensor Tower .

A spokesman for Apple didn’t respond to my questions about why Apple changed its mind about emulator apps. But Testut and Gill say that government-imposed changes were responsible.

The pair had been finalizing AltStore PAL , one of the new, alternative iPhone app stores in the European Union made possible by the Digital Markets Act. A goal of the law was to give people in the region more options to download apps and pay for digital purchases .

Testut and Gill believe Apple didn’t want AltStore PAL, which so far includes Delta and a sibling app, to get popular while Delta was banned in the United States.

“This only can exist because of regulation, and Apple had to open up a tiny bit,” Testut said.

What this means for you

If you want to get started with Delta , you might need help from YouTube videos , subreddits or a gamer buddy. The app is only for iPhones.

Even if you never use Delta, its existence is relevant.

The app’s surge in downloads this month shows how important the App Store is for you to find apps and trust that they’re safe. But the unfulfilled demand for Delta before now also shows the shortcomings of Apple’s control over what you can do on your iPhone.

Testut and Gill say they love the App Store and want Apple’s manicured and controlled app storefront to exist when you want it.

But they also want you to be able to explore potentially clever and maybe messy apps that for whatever reason don’t have Apple’s seal of approval.

You can think of this like having the choice of Walmart or a woman selling handmade knitwear out of her house. Most of the time, you’ll buy from Walmart. But a big-box store isn’t your only choice.

Testut and Gill can imagine you paying a few dollars through Patreon to a group of educators to access several of their child-friendly science apps.

Apple in the United States doesn’t currently allow that kind of direct payment to app developers, nor have you been able to access multiple apps from a single app.

They also imagine a place outside Apple’s official store for apps that aren’t polished enough to win Apple’s approval but that still could be cool for some people. Gill, an amateur musician, compared it to outtakes or rough cuts of songs that musicians put on SoundCloud but that they wouldn’t release officially.

Talking to Testut and Gill, I could feel both their appreciation for Apple’s work making apps simple to use and ubiquitous, and their impatience that Apple’s control has forced you into staid paths that squashed good ideas.

“People haven’t been allowed to try,” Gill said.

Ultimately, that’s what is behind all the antitrust lawsuits and laws against Apple , Google , Meta and Amazon : the opportunity to try to imagine something different from what you’re used to.