Despite the fact that democracy was ‘invented’ more than 2500 years ago, it has been little practice in the history of mankind. It was only since about a century ago that it was hesitantly adopted as a form of government in a growing number of countries.
The people transfer their legally established power to people who represent it. Because that is a solution, which does not always work well in practice, there is becoming increasingly necessary for a system in which voters can vote on certain issues personally and without the intervention of representatives.
The new technologies n and the Internet should now be able to make that possible. As we all know, democracy is a form of government in which the people have power. Political decisions are therefore taken through a vote involving the whole people and deciding the majority.
Since it is practically not possible for the whole people to vote on all matters involving the administration of a municipality, province or country, a representative democracy was established: the people choose representatives for a certain period of time, to whom power is transferred and who, on the basis of the assigned votes, form a parliament and a government. However, the people remain ‘sovereign’, and all political decisions are based on their consent.
Kleisthenes / Source: ohiochannel.org, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-1.0 )
Origin: Democracy in Ancient Greece
The word ‘democracy’ comes from the Greek words ‘demos’ (people) and ‘kratein’ (ruling, rule). Literally, it means ‘people rule.’ The cradle of democracy is in ancient Greece.
The Athenian Kleisthenes, who lived in the 6th century B.C., is considered the father of democracy. In 510 BC he had a large share in the ering tiran Hippias from Athens, after which he managed to carry out a political reform that put an end to the power of the Athenian aristocracy. Eventually, after some struggles and a subsequent forced exile, he instituted for the first time in history a direct democracy. To this end, a general assembly (the ‘Ekklesia’) was established, in which all free men from the Greek polis were allowed to sit and vote. Women, children under 18, strangers and slaves were excluded from this.
It was also the clays that gave the people the opportunity to periodically send a leader, a majority of whom a vote felt had been given too much power or abused them in exile for a certain period of time. This is called the ,shard dish, (‘ostracism’) because the names of those particulars were written on shards (in Greek: ‘ostrakon’). The purpose of that shard dish was to prevent a possible rise of a new tyrant.
The Magna Carta / Source: Original authors were the barons and King John of England. Uploaded by Earthsound. , Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)
Development: Modern Democracy
The rise of modern democracy has been a long process in European history, with a step forward and then a step back. This must be seen in light from the fact that the Roman emperors, absolute rulers of a huge empire, were the model for the later medieval forms of government on the ancient continent and the absolutistic ambitions of the kings. As a counterweight, the ‘Magna Carta’, signed by English King Jan Zonder Land in 1215, cannot be overlooked. Although quite primitive, it was the first true constitution in Europe. A constitution is a document in which fundamental rights (as fundamental rights) and the organisational structure of a state are drafted and binding.
The ‘Magna Carta’ stipulated, among other things, that the king could not impose more own taxes, but had to consult with a royal council. Two knights from each province would take their seat. It also forbade to imprison people without any form of trial, which, incidentally, would not apply to slaves and serfs. This council can be seen as the forerunner of a parliament.
Oliver Cromwell (1599-1648) / Source: Samuel Cooper (died 1672), Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)
It would then over the centuries limit the power of the English kings more and more, which would eventually lead to two civil wars (1642-45 and 1648-49). The result was that the Catholic Charles I, who pursued an absolute rule, was deposed and decapitated, and abolished the monarchy. This thought to have laid the foundations for a parliamentary republic, but nothing would come of it. The leader of the victors, General Oliver Cromwell, named himself ‘Lord Protector’ after a coup in 1653 – just another name for dictator. Four years later, he was unsuccessfully offered the king’s title, on the condition that he would then accept a constitution and a bi-chamber parliament. Eventually, after his death, the monarchy would be restored, but in the meantime it had already lost power.
When England and Scotland merged in 1707 in one kingdom, Grand Britain, the so-called ,Ez. ,Act of Union, adopted. He determined that the king remained the legislature, but that a two-chamber parliament would also be erected, consisting of the so-called. ‘House of Lords’ and the so-called ‘House of Lords’ ‘House of Commons’ (Lower Home). Many democratic countries today have such a parliament.
Rights and freedoms
So, over the centuries, a number of rights and freedoms had been acquired in England, which, however, only a minority could enjoy. In the Republic of the United Netherlands, too, there was already a meeting of representatives of the various regions, which was considered to be the highest political authority. This, the States-General, consisted not only of these delegates – parts and wealthy merchants – also of the Council’s pensionary and the Stadtholder. The latter had no right to vote in the decisions, but would indeed exert influence on them.
Louis XIV (1638-1715) / Source: Hyacinthe Rigaud, Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)
France, on the other hand, sighed in the early 18th century under the yoke of an absolute monarchy, which had reached its climax with Louis XIV. During his long reign, in which he made the illustrative statement: ‘L’ tat, c’est moi’ (‘The state is me’), came the so-called. ‘Enlightenment’ on, a philosophical current, which had a very different role for God and religion within society, moving man more to the center of the universe. However, the French smirth wanted to go further. Where, for example, the Briton John Locke (1632-1704) adhered to reason and man as an individual, they questioned political power.
For example, in ‘Du contrat social’ by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) it can be read that it is legitimized only by the general will of the citizens of a society and not by force (i.e. weapons). If the right to power comes from power, then this right is a meaningless concept. Charles de Montesquieu (1689-1755) described a political system, in which, among other things, the powers were separated; the legislative, the judiciary and the executive. Such ideas, of course, were entirely contrary to the interests of an absolute monarch and a supportive nobility to him and were therefore censored -Rousseau, for example, would be banned from France. Nevertheless, they led a period of (struggle for) social reforms, culminating in the French Revolution in 1789.
The storming of the Bastille (1789) / Source: Unknown, Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)
Freedom, equality and brotherhood
Within Rousseau’s ideas, during this revolution the so-called. D claration des Droits de l Homme et des Citoyens’ (Declaration of human rights and the citizen) are born. In it, power was handed over to the people and all citizens were regarded as free, equals and brothers (‘Libert, galit et fraternit’). The nobility was taken away from her privileges and power, and ecclesiastical property was confiscated. Eventually, King Louis XVI (1754-1793) was sentenced and the monarchy abolished. Despite all the ideals, however, the French Revolution ended in a true paranoia, with beheadings being the order of the day.
After the revolution, the subsequent reign of terror and the Napoleonic era (1799-1815), the Restoration followed, a return to the monarchy in the European countries. Even the Netherlands, from 1588 always a republic, chose -more or more forced – for a king. Yet it would appear that, despite its failure, the French revolution had managed to spread its democratic ideals around the world.
The Rise of First Parliamentary Democracy
Where the 19th century began in Europe with a return to the monarchy, it would end with the rise of various forms of parliamentary democracy. It was associated with repression and rebellion. But where, after the fall of Napoleon, there were few European states, which already had a constitution and a parliament, by the end of the 19th century turned out to have only countries in the periphery of events, if Russia and Turkey, had not been able to follow.
Poland in Poland
One of those exceptions was miraculously the Eastern European Poles, which could not even exist as such throughout the 19th century. In 1795 it was divided into its entirety by its three major neighbors, Russia, Prussia and Austria, and it would only be restored in 1918. However, this constitution was issued in 1791, modelled on the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776. With a separation from the three powers, sovereignty of the people and freedom of religion, it can be regarded as very progressive. It would only be in force for two years. In 1793, after a lost war with much more conservative Russia, it was dissolved by a parliament, whose members had been appointed by the victor.
The United States
The United States, although not a European country, but with a clear European descent, had a constitution since 1787. In it, the country was described as a federation of states with, among other things, a separation of powers, civil protection, freedom of opinion, religion and the press. This constitution, now extended to more than 20 amendments, is still in force. In 1837, a general right to vote would be introduced for men, with which the country was far ahead of its time.
ing and France and France
During the French Revolution, in 1793, France received its first constitution, in many aspects even more progressive than what the country has at the moment. In 1814 it was adapted because the country had become a monarchy again. Yet many reforms of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era would be preserved. The ministers were responsible and deputies could be elected by men over the age of thirty who were able to pay a certain tax amount. This is called ‘Crussible Law.’ Only after the revolution of 1848 would the country receive general men’s suffrage and in 1875 the republic would finally be proclaimed, with no president as head of state a house of deputies and a Senate.
The Congress of Vienna (1814-15) / Source: Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons (PD)
Norway and Norway
The constitution of Norway, the country of the fjords, originally dates from 1814. In that year, the country had celebrated the independence of Denmark, with which it had formed a union since 1380. However, the constitution had to be amended again that same year because Norway was merged with neighboring Sweden by the Congress of Vienna. After the first capitulation of Napoleon, the Vienna Congress had set itself the goal of bringing about a balance of power in Europe and re-informing the continent politically. Because the Norwegians were allowed to retain their own constitution, in 1884 could form a first own government, which would be held accountable to a parliament, and in 1898 even general men’s choking law, in 1905 the union with Sweden could also be broken after a referendum.
The Netherlands and Belgium
� Since 1798, the Batavian Republic (1795-1801) had a French-model constitution that provided for a separation of powers and a limited electoral right. In 1814 it was adapted to the fact that after a centuries-long republican past the country had infurted for a monarchist form. The new king, William I, managed to finenize the power of the States-General. It was now split into two different rooms for the first time. The king was given the legislative power.
After the Congress of Vienna had determined that the Northern and Southern Netherlandss were to be united as one and under one king would mainly show that both areas had grown too far apart. In 1830, the Southern Netherlands proclaimed themselves an independent state, Belgium, in 1830. In the same year, a constitution was drafted that stipulated that the country would be a constitutional monarchy. It was not until 1839 that William I, after years of military violence, would the so-called in London. To accept the Convention.
Johan Rudolph Thorbecke (1798-1872) / Source: Johan Heinrich Neuman, Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)
Under Willem II, a new Dutch constitution was introduced in 1940, in which little changed compared to that of 1814. When eight years later a Germany revolution broke out in France, the king thought out of fear that they would skite on his own people that it would be better to order the state man Johan Rudolph Thorbecke to revise this constitution. This revision would lay the foundations for the current parliamentary democracy in our country. In the future, the ministers, and not the king, would be responsible for the policy, and the House of Representatives would be directly elected. However, there was no general right to vote. Only men who could pay a certain amount of tax (census) were allowed to vote. A general suffrage – for men at least – would only be introduced in 1917.
‘La Pepa’, the first constitution of Spain / Source: Cortes de Cadiz, Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)
Province of Spain and Spain
In Spain, the country under the Pyrenee n, already existed in 1812 a constitution, ‘La Pepa’. It was drawn up in C diz shortly after the French domination, but in 1814 on the return of the legitimate king, Ferdinand VII, he would refuse to sign it. Only after six years of political pressure and resistance would he eventually yield in 1920. Named after the day of Saints (Joseph-Jos-Jospe) on which she saw the light of day, ,La Pepa, was a highly liberal constitution for that period, in which, among other things, the separation of powers and the right to freedom of the press were established. It would be applied in the turbulent age, which followed, but little really. It was not until 1890 that the – male – right to vote was finally introduced in Spain.
Austria and Hungary
The revolutions of 1848 introduced initiatives in various countries to come up with a liberal constitution. Initially, they were taken over by conservative rulers out of fear, but then often reversed. In the Austrian and Hungarian Empire, for a few years there was a two-room parliament, one room was directly elected with general men’s suffrage. In 1851, it was replaced by census suffrage. It was not until 1896 that universal suffrage was reintroduced.
Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882) / Source: Cartes de visite portraits of U.S. Army officers, children, and others, Wikimedia Commons
Itali is Italy
� In 1848, too, a revolution broke out in the Italian states, leading to a number of liberal constitutions. Since the Congress of Vienna, there has been a need for a united Italy, which would come at its height with the so-called. ‘Risorgimento’ in which Giuseppe Garibaldi would become the central figure. In 1860, this national desire became a fact. Victor Emmanuel II was declared a monarch. A year later, a parliament would be composed of delegates from all states.
Germany and Germany
In order to unite the German states, a first constitution was drafted in 1948-49, in which ministers should be responsible for a national parliament, consisting of two chambers. One of them, the Volkshaus would be elected by the people. The country, until that time, was divided into different states for centuries, would become a federation with an emperor as head of state. The Prussian king Frederick IV became the intwell. However, he refused because he did not wish to receive the crown from the hands of a parliament.
Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) / Source: Albumin-Photo / Guenter Josef Radig , Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)
Finally, a German unification under Prussian emperorship came in 1871, thanks to Otto von Bismarck. However, the constitution, which regulated it, was a lot more conservative than the previous one. There was general male suffrage – progressive for that period – and consequently a parliament. But it had little influence on politics and legislation.
Switzerland and Switzerland
A first constitution dates back to 1848 when the country became a federation of cantons. It stipulated that there would be a two-chamber parliament and a government (bond council), with a president and a chancellor.
Denmark of Denmark
A year later, Frederick VII signed the first Danish constitution, which determined that his country would be a parliamentary democracy with a king as the head of state.
United Kingdom of British
� Great Britain, in the middle of the 18th century still the country with the most rights, after several unsuccessful petitions from the labor movement ‘London Working Men’s Association’ to undergo radical reforms (1839,1842 and 1848) did not receive general men’s suffrage until 1918. Then all the demands became in their charter (the so-called. ‘People’s Charter’) granted, except annual parliamentary elections.
Lkiesrecht of women
Thus, in the 19th century, a major shift in force took place, in which in many -especially European countries parliaments of (people’s) deputies were formed and constitutionalates were adopted, which had to guarantee civil rights and freedoms. At the beginning of the 20th century, universal suffrage was a general fact. Only men were favored in it.
Suffragettes / Source: hastingspress, Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)
In the years around the changeover between the ages, an elite of women therefore rose up, who claimed equal rights and emancipation. That movement is called the ,First Feminist Wave,. It was mainly about the right to vote for women, but also about their right to (university) education. In England, the ‘Women’s Social and Political Union’ (Social and Political Union’) was founded in England, better known as the ‘Suffragettes’, which would allow themselves to speak over the following years. In the Netherlands, Aletta Jacobs became known for her attempt to convince the Supreme Court in 1883 that she met the income, which gave her right to participate in the elections. Because there was still a census suffrage in the Netherlands at the time, she was right. The only problem was that she was a woman and that the constitution did not (yet) provide for it.
New Zealand, which had introduced general men’s suffrage in 1889, would be a forerunner in women’s suffrage. Only four years later, in 1893, it was the first country – although still not independent – in which women were also allowed to vote. Australia followed in 1902. A year earlier, the country had become a federation with its own government and a two-room parliament.
Eventually it would be Finland, who was the first European country with women’s suffrage in 1906, followed by Norway (1913), Denmark and Iceland (1915). In 1918, Germany, Poland, Austria and the Baltic countries also crossed the line. Sweden and the Netherlands would do so in 1919, Britain in 1928, Spain in 1931 and Turkey in 1933. France (1944) and Switzerland (1971) were already richly late. In 1976, Portugal, which had been a dictatorship for almost 50 years, was the last country in Europe to equate women with men in the right to vote.
The High Point of Democracy
Women’s suffrage in many cases coincided with the ‘Interbellum’, the period between the two World Wars, and the rise of fascism. It is known that Hitler came to power thanks to a democratic majority, after which democracy in the new Nazi Germany itself would be defunct. During that period, especially during the crisis of the 1930s, a social insurance system arose in some countries while a hesitant life.
Cabinet Drees I (1948-51) / Source: Collection SPAARNESTAD PHOTO/Wheel van der Randen, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA-3.0)
The reconstruction of Europe and the increasing prosperity, which followed, there were more and more social reforms. In the event of unemployment or sickness, citizens were entitled to benefits. Old-age facilities, public health care and education came. New rights and freedoms arose especially after the (student) protests in the late 1960s, who also acted against the input of their own democratic governments into wars and abuses in other countries in the world, where there was no democracy (yet). Many of the rights, which already existed according to the constitution, would take on a new dimension through demonstrations and protests.
All in all, the highlight can perhaps be determined around these 70s and 80s of the last century. After the fall of communism in the early 1990s, many will have thought that nothing would stand in the way of spreading democracy: first the countries of the former Eastern bloc, then the rest of the world. In the long run, the whole world could enjoy social rights and a fairer distribution of wealth. At the same time, however, the social model in many countries came into place in the social model and a new neoliberal model for it. Despite greater globalisation, this would improve social inequality. Economic growth and a good competitive position in relation to other economies became the sacred cows for the new world leaders.
More and more democracy in the world…
In 2015, around 115 of the 195 countries in the world are a democracy. They are not as progressive when it comes to civil rights. For example, countries such as Russia, Turkey and Venezuela have legitimately elected governments, but they have emerged as authoritarian and self-authoritability. Their heads of government have managed to manoeuvre in such a position that they can infuse freedoms and human rights on a large margin. Opposition leaders can be arrested without clear charges and the right of demonstration has been restricted. The wealth is also very unevenly distributed, with Russia taking the crown: just over 100 people have 35% of capital. Turkey is on its way to becoming a theocracy.
In the 1990s, countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Burma carried out democratic reforms with optimism. In the meantime, one gradually starts to bend over the yoke of repression and censorship. The Arab Spring, which began in Tunesi at the end of 2010 as a protest against corruption, seemed to be the beginning of democracy in countries such as Egypt, Yemen, Jordani, Lebanon, Libya and Syria. Some of those countries, like Egypt and Yemen, were already in name, but had to deal with party systems, electoral fraud and corruption. Despite all the resistance, in some cases even culminating in civil wars, only Tunesi in 2014 has become a parliamentary democracy.
In America, democratic countries like Mexico and Argentina are unable to guarantee civil rights.
Delapse: less and less social rights and an unfair wealth distribution
In the United States, a ‘luminous’ example for many of these new non-democracy n, it is now once again clear that the different races have hardly any equal rights and opportunities. White Americans own 20 times as much as black Americans and 18 times as much as ‘Latinos.’ As far as the distribution of capital in the country is concerned, 1% of Americans own 40% of the country’s wealth. For years, progressive elements have struggled to get a little decent health care off.
A cut-throat competition with an emerging economic potential such as China – a dictatorship where human rights are hardly worth anything – and with democracy such as Brazil and India, where social rights hardly play a role and wealth is extremely unevenly distributed, would determine politics in Europe around the turn of the century. In order to make exorbitant profits – more each quarter again – costs had to be reduced. Governments began to push governments back and give markets completely free rein. An expensive welfare state no longer belonged there and had to be privatized. In this way, wages could be drastically reduced and the employment contracts could be made more flexible and shorter, a requirement for attracting more capital investment.
Where in the 70s-80s there was still a more or less fair wealth distribution, we have now also come to a situation in Europe in which middle and lower classes have deteriorated in such a way that in 2013 1% of the population of the E.U. 25% of wealth is in control. In the UK it was 30%, 25% in France and 20% in Sweden. In the Netherlands, 10% of the population owned 61% of the population in 2014 and in Belgium in Belgium owned 1% 40 times more than a modal Belgian. In Spain, the 20 richest people in 2014 had as much capital as 5 million of the poorest. Perhaps that is nothing compared to wealth inequality around the world: it is expected that by 2016 1% of the world’s population will own more than the other 99% combined. And world politics does nothing but stimulate this injustice – also our ‘democratic’ leaders.
For many voters, there seems to have been a tendency in which their representatives act on very different priorities than they have. It is therefore much in common of the fact that economic or political pressure from other countries, party interest or that of private power groups, which have a grip on a large part of the wealth, play a more important role for them than the will of the people, they represent. In some cases, it also seems that they are more concerned with a future lucrative future career with the European Union or the United Nations, or in business. ‘Lobbyism’ and ‘particration’ have become concepts in contemporary ‘democratic’ politics, a world that is increasingly moving away from the reality of the ‘modal’ man.
In 1957 the Treaty establishing the EEC was signed in Rome / Source: Hadi, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA-3.0)
Originally, the European Union was a noble endeavour to obtain peace and stability in post-war Europe through a common economic market. In recent decades, it has become an economic power bloc of more than twenty countries, which seems to have become a (money) consuming monster, which sets economic growth as a sole goal. As a declaration of intent, the 2003 European Constitution, which has been postponed. It contains more social gaps, vague descriptions and points of discussion than in any other constitution of the Member States themselves. Justified, therefore, the question is: does it care about the decline of social rights and a growing gap between rich and poor?
Conclusion: digital voting, the salvation of democracy
Representative democracy is a practical solution. The people, who have de facto power according to the constitution, cannot deal with political decisions on a daily basis. That is why it is represented for a certain period by delegates who promise to carry out his will. There is a relationship of trust.
Because a delegate cannot represent only one person – otherwise you would have as many representatives as voters – who focuses on a group of voters. The more voters a delegate has behind him, the more seats he is assigned to a parliament. That is why parties were founded, with several people being able to join to jointly represent those voters. Logically, a party system results from this. Those parties have a party program and make election promises, and the electorate may vote for one of those parties once in the so many years.
One objection is that this leads to a kind of dictatorship of a minority elected by a majority. The bottom line is that that minority (of deputies) then implements its party program, which in all cases does not have to be the will of each individual voter. It is impossible that it fully supports the entire program of a party. In essence, he votes to one party because of the main points in it at that time that are in it or that have come forward during debates or speeches.
It is very similar to that representatives increasingly in the running of an authoritarian and hi-archical party politics, which dances to the tune of rich minorities who have no bread in equality and democracy. The opinion of bankers and multinationals and their idea of what freedom is (usually only their own) seem to outweigh the will of (a majority of) the people. We have arrived at a point where every four years a new oligarchy can make unhindered decisions that hardly concern the lives of the citizen. It is therefore strange that many voters are increasingly feeling deceived and turning away from democracy – choirs on the mill of populists and radicals. So what can we conclude, however, that democracy in Europe is also at risk of being reduced to a fa ade, behind which freedoms and rights are only words on paper?
Perhaps not perfect, but nevertheless perhaps within the re le opportunities the fairest and most just, democracy only seems to be saved by introducing a system with more direct methods of choice. Thanks to the new techniques and the Internet, this is possible for a long time. With digital signatures, or Digi-ID, as already used in e.g. electronic banking and other administrative actions, it is possible to vote regularly electronically by referendum in a simple way. To determine what official social networks can be established on the Internet, where popular initiatives are being drawn and petitions signed.
If democracy does not want to be further eroded and in the long run perhaps completely defunct, something such must be done in a very near future. But to let that come to that, the political will is first needed.