Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept 

still misunderstood and misused at a time when dictators, 

single-party regimes, and military coup leaders alike assert 

popular support by claiming the mantle of democracy. Yet 

the power of the democratic idea has prevailed through a 

long and turbulent history, and democratic government, 

despite continuing 

challenges, continues 

to evolve and ourish 

throughout the 

world.

Democracy, 

which derives from 

the Greek word 

“demos,” or “people,” 

is dened, basically, 

as government in 

which the supreme 

power is vested in 

the people. In some forms, democracy can be exercised directly 

by the people; in large societies, it is by the people through 

their elected agents. Or, in the memorable phrase of President 

Introduction: What is Democracy?

Table of Contents

Introduction: What Is Democracy?.........................................................1

Characteristics of Democracy..................................................................4

Rights and Responsibilities.....................................................................11

Democratic Elections................................................................................19

Rule of Law...................................................................................................26

Constitutionalism......................................................................................30

Three Pillars of Government..................................................................34

Free and Independent Media................................................................43

Political Parties, Interest Groups, NGOs.............................................46

Civil-Military Relations.............................................................................52

The Culture of Democracy......................................................................55

Civilized debate and due process of law are at the core of 

democratic practice. This woodcut imagines an ancient 

Greek court on the Areopagus outcrop in Athens. 

1
In 1215, English nobles pressured King John of England to sign a document known as the 

Magna Carta, a key step on the road to constitutional democracy. By doing so, the king 

acknowledged he was bound by law, like others, and granted his subjects legal rights.

Abraham Lincoln, democracy is government “of the people, by 

the people, and for the people.” 

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, 

but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed 

a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also 

consists of practices and procedures that have been molded 

through a long, often tortuous history. Democracy is the 

institutionalization of freedom. 

In the end, people living in a democratic society must serve 

as the ultimate guardians of their own freedom and must forge 

their own path toward the ideals set forth in the preamble to 

the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 

“Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and 

inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the 

foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.”

2 3
5

Characteristics of Democracy

Democracy is more than just a set of specic government institutions; it rests upon a well-understood group of 

values, attitudes, and practices — all of which may take different 

forms and expressions among cultures and societies around 

the world. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not 

uniform practices.

Core Democratic Characteristics

• Democracy is government in which power and civic 

responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens, directly, 

or through their freely elected representatives.

• Democracy rests upon the principles of majority 

rule and individual rights. Democracies guard against 

all-powerful central governments and decentralize 

government to regional and local levels, understanding 

that all levels of government must be as accessible and 

responsive to the people as possible.

• Democracies understand that one of their prime 

functions is to protect such basic human rights as 

freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal 

protection under law; and the opportunity to organize 

and participate fully in the political, economic, and 

cultural life of society.

• Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections 

open to citizens of voting age. 

• Citizens in a democracy 

have not only rights, but 

also the responsibility to 

participate in the political 

system that, in turn, 

protects their rights and 

freedoms.

• Democratic societies are 

committed to the values 

of tolerance, cooperation, 

and compromise. In 

the words of Mahatma 

Gandhi, “Intolerance is 

itself a form of violence 

and an obstacle to 

the growth of a true 

democratic spirit.”

Two Forms of Democracy

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and 

representative. In a direct democracy, citizens, without the 

intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in 

making public decisions. Such a system is clearly most practical 

with relatively small numbers of people — in a community 

organization, tribal council, or the local unit of a labor union, 

for example — where members can meet in a single room to 

Fair, frequent, and well-managed elections are 

essential in a democracy. Here, election officials 

staff a voting station in Paraguay.

4
7

elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and 

administer programs for the public good. 

Majority Rule and Minority Rights

All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make 

political decisions by majority rule. In the words of American 

essayist E.B. White: “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that 

more than half the people are right more than half the time.” 

But majority rule, by itself, is not automatically 

democratic. No one, for example, would call a system fair or 

just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress 

the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In 

a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with 

guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to 

protect the rights of minorities and dissenters — whether ethnic, 

religious, or simply the losers in political debate. The rights of 

minorities do not depend upon the good will of the majority and 

cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities 

are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect 

the rights of all citizens. 

Minorities need to trust the government to protect their 

rights and safety. Once this is accomplished, such groups can 

participate in, and contribute to their country’s democratic 

institutions. The principle of majority rule and minority rights 

6

discuss issues and arrive at 

decisions by consensus or 

majority vote. 

Some U.S. states, in 

addition, place “propositions” 

and “referenda” — mandated 

changes of law — or possible 

recall of elected officials on 

ballots during state elections. 

These practices are forms of 

direct democracy, expressing 

the will of a large population. 

Many practices may have 

elements of direct democracy. 

In Switzerland, many important 

political decisions on issues, 

including public health, 

energy, and employment, 

are subject to a vote by the 

country’s citizens. And some 

might argue that the Internet is creating new forms of direct 

democracy, as it empowers political groups to raise money for 

their causes by appealing directly to like-minded citizens. 

However, today, as in the past, the most common form 

of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or a nation of 50 

million, is representative democracy, in which citizens 

Some local jurisdictions in the United States 

still practice a form of direct democracy, as 

in this town meeting in Harwick, Vermont. 

Schools and taxes tend to be popular issues.
8 9

characterizes all modern democracies, no matter how varied in 

history, culture, population, and economy.

 Pluralism and Democratic Society

In a democracy, government is only one thread in the 

social fabric of many and varied public and private institutions, 

legal forums, political parties, organizations, and associations. 

This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many 

organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do 

not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or 

authority. Most democratic societies have thousands of private 

organizations, some local, some national. Many of them serve a 

mediating role between individuals and society’s complex social 

and governmental institutions, lling roles not given to the 

government and offering individuals opportunities to become 

part of their society without being in government.

In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations 

would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise 

accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of 

the government are, by law, clearly dened and sharply limited. 

As a result, private organizations are largely free of government 

control. In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens 

An educated citizenry is the best guarantee for a thriving democracy.

Tolerance and cooperation build democracy.
Rights and Responsibilities

Democracies rest upon the principle that government exists to serve the people. In other words, the people are citizens 

of the democratic state, not its subjects. Because the state 

protects the rights of its citizens, they, in turn, give the state 

their loyalty. Under an authoritarian system, by contrast, the 

state demands loyalty and service from its people without any 

reciprocal obligation to secure their consent for its actions.

Fundamental Rights

This relationship of citizen and state is fundamental to democracy. In the 

words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 

1776: 

We hold these truths 

to be self-evident, that 

all men are created 

equal, that they are 

endowed by their 

Creator with certain 

inalienable rights, 

that among these 

can explore the possibilities of peaceful self-fulllment and 

the responsibilities of belonging to a community — free of the 

potentially heavy hand of the state or the demand that they 

adhere to views held by those with inuence or power, or by the 

majority.

10

Public discussion on all kinds of topics – personal, cultural, political – is the lifeblood of 

democracy. Above: Nigerian Nobel-prize winner Wole Soyinka at a Swiss book fair.

11

In this illustration, Benjamin Franklin, John 

Adams, and Thomas Jefferson draft the 

Declaration of Independence. The Declaration 

laid the groundwork for American democracy by 

proclaiming, “All men are created equal. ...”
unwise or oppressive government officials or policies. Citizens 

and their elected representatives recognize that democracy 

depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, 

data, and opinions. For a free people to govern themselves, they 

must be free to express themselves — openly, publicly, and 

repeatedly — in speech and in writing.

The protection of free speech is a so-called “negative right,” 

simply requiring that the government refrain from limiting 

speech. For the most part, the authorities in a democracy are 

uninvolved in the content of written and verbal speech.

Protests serve as a testing ground for any democracy 

— thus the right to peaceful assembly is essential and plays an 

integral part in facilitating the use of free speech. A civil society 

allows for spirited debate among those in disagreement over 

the issues. In the modern United States, even fundamental 

issues of national security, war, and peace are discussed freely in 

newspapers and in broadcast media, with those opposed to the 

administration’s foreign policy easily publicizing their views.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not 

absolute, and cannot be used to incite to violence. Slander and 

libel, if proven, are usually dened and controlled through the 

courts. Democracies generally require a high degree of threat 

to justify banning speech or gatherings that may incite violence, 

untruthfully harm the reputation of others, or overthrow a 

constitutional government. Many democracies ban speech 

that promotes racism or ethnic hatred. The challenge for all 

democracies, however, is one of balance: to defend freedom 

13

are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to 

secure these rights, governments are instituted among 

men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the 

governed.

More specically, in democracies, these fundamental or 

inalienable rights include freedom of speech and expression, 

freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly, 

and the right to equal protection before the law. This is by no 

means an exhaustive list of the rights that citizens enjoy in a 

democracy, but it does constitute a set of the irreducible core 

rights that any democratic government worthy of the name 

must uphold. Since they exist independently of government, 

in Jefferson’s view, these rights cannot be legislated away, nor 

should they be subject to the whim of an electoral majority. 

Speech, Assembly, and Protest

Freedom of speech and expression, especially about 

political and social issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. 

Democratic governments do not control the content of most 

written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually lled 

with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas 

and opinions. Democracies tend to be noisy. 

Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable 

citizenry whose access to information enables it to participate 

as fully as possible in the public life of society and to criticize 

12
14

of speech and assembly while countering speech that truly 

encourages violence, intimidation, or subversion of democratic 

institutions. One can disagree forcefully and publicly with the 

actions of a public official; calling for his (or her) assassination, 

however, is a crime.

Religious Freedom and Tolerance

All citizens should be free to follow their conscience in 

matters of religious faith. Freedom of religion includes the 

right to worship alone or with others, in public or private, or 

not to worship at all, and to participate in religious observance, 

15

practice, and teaching without fear of persecution from 

government or other groups in society. All people have the right 

to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and 

to establish and maintain places for these purposes.

Like other fundamental human rights, religious freedom 

is not created or granted by the state, but all democratic states 

should protect it. Although many democracies may choose to 

recognize an official separation of church and state, the values 

of government and religion are not in fundamental conict. 

Governments that protect religious freedom for all their citizens 

are more likely to protect other rights necessary for religious 

freedom, such as free speech and assembly. The American 

colonies, virtually theocratic states in the 17th and 18th centuries, 

developed theories of religious tolerance and secular democracy 

almost simultaneously. By contrast, some of the totalitarian 

dictatorships of the 20th century attempted to wipe out religion, 

seeing it (rightly) as a form of self-expression by the individual 

conscience, akin to political speech. Genuine democracies 

recognize that individual religious differences must be respected 

and that a key role of government is to protect religious choice, 

even in cases where the state sanctions a particular religious faith. 

However, this does not mean that religion itself can become an 

excuse for violence against other religions or against society as 

a whole. Religion is exercised within the context of a democratic 

society but does not take it over.

Democracy as hope: In 2006, 20,000 people marched in Hong Kong carrying banners 

reading “Justice, Equality, Democracy, and Hope.”
Citizen Responsibilities

Citizenship in a democracy requires participation, civility, 

patience — rights as well as responsibilities. Political scientist 

Benjamin Barber has noted, “Democracy is often understood 

as the rule of the majority, and rights are understood more and 

more as the private possessions of individuals. ... But this is to 

misunderstand both rights and democracy.” For democracy 

to succeed, citizens must be active, not passive, because they 

know that the success or failure of the government is their 

responsibility, and no one else’s. 

16

It is certainly true that individuals exercise basic rights — 

such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but in another 

sense, rights, like individuals, do not function in isolation. Rights 

are exercised within the framework of a society, which is why 

rights and responsibilities are so closely connected.

Democratic government, which is elected by and 

accountable to its citizens, protects individual rights so that 

citizens in a democracy can undertake their civic obligations and 

responsibilities, thereby strengthening the society as a whole. 

17

Democratic development and economic prosperity often go hand in hand: above, a market 

in Istanbul.

As democracies become stable, they permit more freedoms. When French voters were 

given the right to vote by referendum on the proposed European Constitution (here being 

mailed to them in May 2005), they expressed their binding opinion by rejecting it.
18

At a minimum, citizens should educate themselves about 

the critical issues confronting their society, if only so that they 

can vote intelligently. Some obligations, such as serving on juries 

in civil or criminal trials or in the military, may be required by law, 

but most are voluntary. 

The essence of democratic action is the peaceful, active, 

freely chosen participation of its citizens in the public life of their 

community and nation. According to scholar Diane Ravitch, 

“Democracy is a process, a way of living and working together. It 

is evolutionary, not static. It requires cooperation, compromise, 

and tolerance among all citizens. Making it work is hard, not easy. 

Freedom means responsibility, not freedom from responsibility.” 

Fullling this responsibility can involve active engagement in 

organizations or the pursuit of specic community goals; above 

all, fulllment in a democracy involves a certain attitude, a 

willingness to believe that people who are different from you 

have similar rights.

19

Democratic Elections

Free and fair elections are essential in assuring the consent of the governed, which is the bedrock of democratic politics. 

Elections serve as the principal mechanism for translating that 

consent into governmental authority. 

Elements of Democratic Elections 

The late Jeane Kirkpatrick, scholar and former U.S. 

representative to the United Nations, offered this denition: 

“Democratic elections are not merely symbolic. ...They are 

competitive, periodic, inclusive, denitive elections in which the 

As democracy expands worldwide, so does the ballot box. Above: Yemeni voter.
chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens 

who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish 

their criticism, and to present alternatives.” 

Democratic elections are competitive. Opposition parties 

and candidates must enjoy the freedom of speech, assembly, 

and movement necessary to voice their criticisms of the 

government openly and to bring alternative policies and 

candidates to the voters. Simply permitting the opposition 

access to the ballot is not enough. The party in power may enjoy 

the advantages of incumbency, but the rules and conduct of 

the election contest must be fair. On the other hand, freedom 

20

of assembly for opposition 

parties does not imply mob 

rule or violence. It means 

debate.

Democratic elections are 

periodic. Democracies do not 

elect dictators or presidentsfor-life. Elected officials are 

accountable to the people, 

and they must return to the 

voters at prescribed intervals 

to seek their mandate to 

continue in office and face 

the risk of being voted out of 

office.

Democratic elections are 

inclusive. The denition of 

citizen and voter must be large 

enough to include the adult 

population. A government chosen by a small, exclusive group 

is not a democracy — no matter how democratic its internal 

workings may appear. One of the great dramas of democracy 

throughout history has been the struggle of excluded groups 

— whether racial, ethnic, or religious minorities, or women — to 

win full citizenship, and with it the right to vote, hold office, and 

participate fully in the society. 

Democratic elections are denitive. They determine the 

21

Free choice is essential in elections. Here, voters in the Democratic Republic of Congo 

peruse choices in 2006. The more self-condent the democracy, the 

greater the variety of candidates. 

Michelle Bachelet’s election as Chilean 

president expanded political horizons for 

women.
Loyal Opposition

One of the most difficult concepts for some to accept, 

especially in nations where the transition of power has 

historically taken place at the point of a gun, is that of the 

“loyal opposition.” This idea is a vital one, however. It means, in 

essence, that all sides 

in a democracy share a 

common commitment to 

its basic values. Political 

competitors don’t 

necessarily have to like 

each other, but they must 

tolerate one another 

and acknowledge that 

each has a legitimate and 

important role to play. 

Moreover, the ground 

rules of the society must 

encourage tolerance and 

civility in public debate.

When the election is 

over, the losers accept the 

judgment of the voters. 

If the incumbent party 

loses, it turns over power peacefully. No matter who wins, both 

sides agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the 

22

leadership of the government for a set period of time. Popularly 

elected representatives hold the reins of power; they are not 

simply gureheads or symbolic leaders. 

Democracies thrive on openness and accountability, 

with one very important exception: the act of voting itself. 

To minimize the opportunity for intimidation, voters in a 

democracy must be permitted to cast their ballots in secret. At 

the same time, the protection of the ballot box and tallying of 

vote totals must be conducted as openly as possible, so that 

citizens are condent that the results are accurate and that the 

government does, indeed, rest upon their “consent.” 

23

Citizens vote on laws and issues as well as candidates for office. This 2007 photo shows an 

Ecuadorian woman voting on constitutional reform.

In democracy, losers and winners wage political 

warfare via parliamentary procedure. Above: 

Japanese parliament, Tokyo. 
society. The opposition continues to participate in public life 

with the knowledge that its role is essential in any democracy. 

It is loyal not to the specic policies of the government, but to 

the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic 

process itself. 

Democratic elections, after all, are not a ght for survival 

but a competition to serve.

Administering Elections

The way public officials in a democracy are elected can vary 

enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can 

24

be chosen by districts that each elect a single representative, 

also know as the “winner-take- all” system. Alternatively, under 

a system of proportional representation, each political party is 

represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the 

total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror 

these national models.

Whatever the exact system, election processes must be 

seen as fair and open so that the election results are recognized 

as legitimate. Public officials must ensure wide freedom to 

register as a voter or run for office; administer an impartial 

system for guaranteeing a secret ballot along with open, public 

vote counting; prevent voter fraud; and, if necessary, institute 

procedures for recounts and resolving election disputes.

25

Election workers count votes by candlelight in Dakar, Senegal.
Rule of Law

For much of human history, law was simply the will of the ruler. Democracies, by contrast, have established the 

principle of the rule of law for rulers and citizens alike.

Equal Adherence to Law

The rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and 

economic rights and defends citizens from the threats of both 

tyranny and lawlessness. Rule of law means that no individual, 

whether president or private citizen, stands above the law. 

Democratic governments exercise authority by way of the law 

and are themselves subject to the law’s constraints. 

Citizens living in democracies are willing to obey the laws 

of their society because they are submitting to their own rules 

and regulations. Justice is best achieved when the laws are 

established by the very people who must obey them. Whether 

rich or poor, ethnic majority or religious minority, political ally of 

the state or peaceful opponent — all must obey the laws. 

The citizens of a democracy submit to the law because 

they recognize that, however indirectly, they are submitting 

to themselves as makers of the law. When laws are established 

by the people who then have to obey them, both law and 

democracy are served. 

Due Process

In every society throughout history, those who have 

administered the criminal justice system have held power 

with the potential for abuse and tyranny. In the name of the 

state, individuals have been imprisoned, had their property 

seized, have been tortured, exiled, and executed without legal 

justication and often without formal charges ever being 

brought. No democratic society can tolerate such abuses. 

Every state must have the power to maintain order and 

punish criminal acts, but the rules and procedures by which the 

state enforces its laws must be public and explicit — not secret, 

arbitrary, or subject to political manipulation — and they must 

be the same for all. This is what is meant by due process. In democracy, trials are open to the public. Here, a group of American teens gets a civics 

lesson and a symbolic choice.

26 27
 In order to implement due process, the following rules 

have evolved in constitutional democracies: 

• No one’s home can be searched by the police without 

a court order showing that there is good cause for such 

a search. The midnight knock of the secret police has no 

place in a democracy.

• No person shall be held under arrest without explicit, 

written charges that specify the alleged violation. 

Moreover, under the doctrine known as habeas corpus, 

every person who is arrested has a right to be brought 

before a court and must be released if a court nds that 

the arrest is invalid.

• Persons charged with crimes should not be held in 

prison for protracted periods before being tried. They are 

entitled to have a speedy and public trial, and to confront 

and question their accusers.

• Authorities are required to grant bail, or conditional 

release, to the accused pending trial if there is little 

likelihood that the suspect will ee or commit other 

crimes. 

• Persons cannot be compelled to be witnesses against 

themselves. This prohibition against involuntary selfincrimination must be absolute. As a corollary, the police 

may not use torture or physical or psychological abuse 

against suspects under any circumstances. 

• Persons shall not be subject to double jeopardy; that 

is, they cannot be charged with the same crime a second 

28

time if they have once been acquitted of it in a court of law.

• Because of their potential for abuse by the authorities, 

so-called ex post facto laws are also proscribed. These are 

laws made after the fact so that someone can be charged 

with a crime even though the act was not illegal at the time 

it occurred.

• Cruel or unusual punishments are prohibited.

None of these restrictions means that the state lacks the 

necessary power to enforce the law and punish offenders. On the 

contrary, the criminal justice system in a democratic society will 

be effective to the degree that its administration is judged by the 

population to be fair and protective of individual safety, as well 

as serving the public interest.

29

Rule of law can be complicated: above, a lawsuit alleging wrongful employment 

termination begins in court in the State of Washington, 2005.
Constitutionalism

Aconstitution, which states government’s fundamental obligations and the limitations on state power, is a vital 

institution for any democracy. 

Constitutions: Supreme Law

A constitution denes the basic purposes and aspirations 

of a society for the sake of the common welfare of the people. 

All citizens, including the nation’s leaders, are subject to the 

nation’s constitution, which stands as the supreme law of the 

land.

30

At a minimum, the constitution, which is usually codied 

in a single written document, establishes the authority of the 

national government, provides guarantees for fundamental 

human rights, and sets forth the government’s basic operating 

procedures. Constitutions are often based on previously 

uncodied, but widely accepted, practices and precedents. For 

instance, the U.S. Constitution is based on concepts derived 

from British common law as well as 18th-century philosophers’ 

attempts to dene the rights of man.

Constitutionalism recognizes that democratic and 

accountable government must be coupled with clearly dened 

limits on the power of government. All laws, therefore, must be 

written in accordance with the constitution. In a democracy, a 

politically independent judiciary allows citizens to challenge 

laws they believe to be unconstitutional, and to seek courtordered remedies for illegal actions by the government or its 

officials.

Despite their enduring, monumental qualities, constitutions 

must be capable of change and adaptation if they are to 

be more than admirable fossils. The world’s oldest written 

constitution, that of the United States, consists of seven brief 

articles and 27 amendments — the rst 10 of which are known 

as the Bill of Rights. This written document, however, is also 

the foundation for a vast “constitutional” structure of judicial 

decisions, statutes, presidential actions, and practices that has 

been erected over the past 200 years and which has kept the 

U.S. Constitution alive and relevant. 

Signing of the U.S. Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787.

31
32

In general, there are two schools of thought about the 

process of amending, or changing, a nation’s constitution. One 

holds that it is best to adopt a difficult procedure, requiring 

many steps and large majorities for amendment. As a result, 

the constitution is changed infrequently, and then only for 

compelling reasons that receive substantial public support. This 

is the U.S. model. 

A simpler method of constitutional change, which many 

nations use, is to provide that any amendment may be adopted 

by approval of the legislature and passed by the voters at the 

next election. Constitutions revised in this fashion can become 

quite lengthy. 

Federalism: Dispersal of Power

When free people choose to live under an agreed 

constitutional framework, it may be implemented in various 

ways. Some democracies have unitary administrations. 

Another solution is a federal system of government — power 

shared at the local, regional, and national levels.

The United States, for example, is a federal republic 

with states that have their own legal standing and authority 

independent of the federal government. Unlike the political 

subdivisions in nations such as Britain and France, which have a 

unitary political structure, American states cannot be abolished 

or changed by the federal government. Although power at 

the national level in the United States has grown signicantly, 

33

states still possess signicant responsibilities in elds such as 

education, health, transportation, and law enforcement. In turn, 

individual U.S. states have generally followed the federal model 

by delegating many functions, such as the operation of schools 

and police, to local communities. 

The divisions of power and authority in a federal system 

are never neat and tidy — federal, state, and local agencies 

can all have overlapping and even conicting agendas in areas 

such as education and criminal justice — but federalism can 

maximize opportunities for the citizen involvement so vital to 

the functioning of democratic society. Americans believe their 

federal structure protects their individual autonomy.

In the U.S. federal system, institutions such as the police and schools are largely funded and 

managed at the local level.
34

Three Pillars of Government

As has been noted, through free elections citizens of a democracy confer powers that are dened by law upon 

their leaders. In a constitutional democracy, the power of 

government is divided so that the legislature makes the laws, 

the executive authority carries them out, and the judiciary 

operates quasi-independently. These divisions are sometimes 

described as a “separation of powers.” In actual practice, however, 

such divisions are rarely neat, and in most modern democratic 

states these powers are overlapping and shared as much as they 

are separated. Legislatures may attempt to manage programs 

through detailed regulations; executive offices routinely engage 

in detailed rulemaking; and both legislators and executive 

officers conduct judicial-style hearings on a wide range of issues.

Executive Authority

In constitutional democracies, executive authority is 

generally limited in three ways: by separation of powers, just 

noted, among the national government’s executive, legislative, 

and judicial branches, with the legislature and judiciary able to 

check the power of the executive branch; by the constitutional 

guarantees of fundamental rights, and by periodic elections. 

For authoritarians and other critics, a common 

misapprehension is that democracies, lacking the power 

to oppress, also lack the authority to govern. This view is 

fundamentally wrong: Democracies require that their 

governments be limited, not that they be weak. 

Executive authority in modern democracies is generally 

organized in one of two ways: as a parliamentary or a 

presidential system. 

In a parliamentary system, the majority party (or a coalition 

of parties willing to govern together) in the legislature forms 

the executive branch of the government, headed by a prime 

minister. The legislative and executive branches are not entirely 

distinct from one another in a parliamentary system, since the 

prime minister and members of the cabinet are drawn from the 

parliament; even so, the prime minister is the national leader. 

35

Some democracies combine elements of presidential and parliamentary systems: above, 

Indian President Pratibha Patil arrives at swearing-in ceremony, 2007.
In a presidential system, by contrast, the president usually is 

elected separately from the members of the legislature. Both the 

president and the legislature have their own power bases and 

political constituencies, which serve to check and balance each 

other.

Each system has its own institutional strengths and 

weaknesses. 

A principal claim for parliamentary systems, which today 

make up the majority of democracies, is their responsiveness 

and exibility. Parliamentary governments, especially if elected 

through proportional representation, tend toward multiparty 

systems where even relatively small political groupings are 

36

represented in the legislature. As a result, distinct minorities 

can still participate in the political process at the highest levels 

of government. Should the governing coalition collapse or the 

strongest party lose its mandate, the prime minister resigns 

and a new government forms or new elections take place — all 

usually within a relatively short time. 

The major drawback to parliaments is the dark side of 

exibility and power sharing: instability. Multiparty coalitions 

may be fragile and collapse at the rst sign of political crisis, 

resulting in governments that are in office for relatively short 

periods of time and unable to address difficult political issues. 

On the other hand, other parliamentary systems are stabilized 

by strong majority parties. 

For presidential systems, the principal claims are direct 

accountability, continuity, and strength. Presidents, elected 

for xed periods by the people, can claim authority deriving 

from direct election, whatever the standing of their political 

party in the congress. By creating separate but theoretically 

equal branches of government, a presidential system seeks 

to establish strong executive and legislative institutions, each 

able to claim a mandate from the people and each capable of 

checking and balancing the other.

The weakness of separately elected presidents and 

legislatures is a potential stalemate. Presidents may not possess 

enough political allies in the legislature to cast the votes to 

enact the policies they want, but by employing their veto power 

(the right of the executive under certain circumstances to annul 

37

England’s House of Commons, the lower chamber of the British Parliament, is one of the 

world’s oldest and most successful democratic institutions.
laws passed by the legislature), they can prevent the legislature 

from enacting its own legislative programs. The late political 

scientist Richard Neustadt described presidential power in the 

United States as “not the power to command, but the power to 

persuade.” What Neustadt meant is that a U.S. president who 

wants Congress to enact a legislative program to his liking — or 

at least to avoid laws he disagrees with being passed by political 

opponents — must command political popularity with the 

public, and be able to forge effective alliances in the Congress.

The Legislative Realm

Elected legislatures — whether under a parliamentary or 

presidential system — are the principal forum for deliberating, 

debating, and passing laws in a representative democracy. They 

are not so-called rubber-stamp parliaments merely approving 

the decisions of an authoritarian leader. 

Legislators may question government officials about 

their actions and decisions, approve national budgets, and 

conrm executive appointees to courts and ministries. In some 

democracies, legislative committees provide lawmakers a forum 

for these public examinations of national issues. Legislators may 

support the government in power or they may serve as a loyal 

political opposition that offers alternative policies and programs.

Legislators have a responsibility to articulate their views 

as effectively as possible. But they must work within the 

democratic ethic of tolerance, respect, and compromise to reach 

38

agreements that will benet the general welfare of all the people 

— not just their political supporters. Each legislator must alone 

decide on how to balance the general welfare with the needs of 

a local constituency.

Lacking the separation of powers characteristic of a 

presidential system, parliamentary systems must rely much more 

heavily on the internal political dynamics of the parliament itself 

to provide checks and balances on the power of the government. 

These usually take the form of a single organized opposition 

party that “shadows” the government, or of competition among 

multiple opposition parties. 

39

When out of office, the “loyal opposition” criticizes and checks the government. Spain’s 

opposition party leader speaks to the press.
An Independent Judiciary

Independent and professional judges are the foundation 

of a fair, impartial, and constitutionally guaranteed system of 

courts of law. This independence does not imply judges can 

make decisions based on personal preferences, but rather that 

they are free to make lawful decisions — even if those decisions 

contradict the government or powerful parties involved in a 

case.

In democracies, the protective constitutional structure 

and prestige of the judicial branch of government guarantees 

independence from political pressure. Thus, judicial rulings can 

be impartial, based on the facts of a case, legal arguments, and 

relevant laws — without restrictions or improper inuence by 

the executive or legislative branches. These principles ensure 

equal legal protection for all.

The power 

of judges to 

review public 

laws and declare 

them in violation 

of the nation’s 

constitution 

serves as a 

fundamental 

check on 

potential 

40

government abuse of 

power — even if the 

government is elected 

by a popular majority. 

This power, however, 

requires that the courts 

be seen as fundamentally 

independent and nonpartisan and able to rest 

their decisions upon 

the law, not political 

considerations.

Whether elected 

or appointed, judges 

must have job security 

or tenure, guaranteed by 

law, in order that they can 

make decisions without 

concern for pressure 

or attack by those in 

positions of authority. To ensure their impartiality, judicial 

ethics require judges to step aside (or “recuse” themselves) from 

deciding cases in which they have a personal conict of interest. 

Trust in the court system’s impartiality — in its being seen as the 

“non-political” branch of government — is a principal source of 

its strength and legitimacy.

Judges in a democracy cannot be removed for minor 

41

The professionalism of judges is one of their best defenses 

against social and political pressure. 

A judge leaves his bench during a criminal trial in 

Rome, 2005. The judge’s costume reects centuries 

of legal tradition.
complaints, or in response to political criticism. Instead, they 

can be removed only for serious crimes or infractions through 

the lengthy and difficult procedure of impeachment (bringing 

charges) and trial — either in the legislature or before a separate 

court panel.

42

Free and Independent Media

As modern societies grow in size and complexity, the arena for communication and public debate has become 

dominated by the media: radio and television, newspapers, 

magazines, books — and increasingly by newer media such as 

the Internet and satellite television.

Whether Web logs (known as blogs) or printed books, 

the media in a democracy have a number of overlapping 

but distinctive 

functions that remain 

fundamentally 

unchanged. One is to 

inform and educate. 

To make intelligent 

decisions about 

public policy, people 

need accurate, 

timely, unbiased 

information. 

However, another 

media function may 

be to advocate, even without pretense of objectivity. Media 

audiences may benet from various, conicting opinions, 

in order to obtain a wide range of viewpoints. This role is 

especially important during election campaigns, when few 

voters will have the opportunity to see, much less talk with, 

candidates in person. 

43

Freedom of expression relies on vibrant, multi-faceted 

press and information services.
44

A second function of the media is to serve as a watchdog 

over government and other powerful institutions in the society. 

By holding to a standard of independence and objectivity, 

however imperfectly, the news media can expose the truth 

behind the claims of governments and hold public officials 

accountable for their actions. 

The media can also take a more active role in public debate 

through editorials or investigative reporting, and serve as a 

forum for groups and individuals to express their opinions 

through letters and articles, and postings on the Web, with 

divergent points of view. 

Commentators point to another increasingly important 

role for the media: “setting the agenda.” Since they can’t 

report everything, the news media must choose which 

issues to highlight and which to ignore. In short, they tend to 

decide what is news and what isn’t. These decisions, in turn, 

inuence the public’s perception of what issues are most 

important. Unlike countries where the news is controlled by 

the government, however, the media in a democracy cannot 

simply manipulate or disregard issues at will. Their competitors, 

after all, are free to call attention to their own lists of important 

issues.

Citizens of a democracy live with the conviction that 

through the open exchange of ideas and opinions, truth will 

eventually win out over falsehood, the values of others will be 

better understood, areas of compromise more clearly dened, 

and the path of progress opened. The greater the volume of 

45

such exchanges, the better. Writer E.B. White once put it this 

way: “The press in our free country is reliable and useful not 

because of its good character but because of its great diversity. 

As long as there are many owners, each pursuing his own brand 

of truth, we the people have the opportunity to arrive at the 

truth and dwell in the light. ...There is safety in numbers.” 

Freedom of expression also takes the form of peaceful assemblies and demonstrations. 

Above: political rally, Zanzibar, 2005.
Political Parties, Interest Groups, NGOs

Citizens cannot be required to take part in the political process, but without citizen action, democracy will weaken. 

The right of individuals to associate freely and to organize 

themselves as they see t is fundamental to democracy.

Political Parties

Political parties recruit, nominate, and campaign to elect 

public officials; draw up policy programs for the government if 

they are in the majority; offer criticisms and alternative policies 

if they are in opposition; mobilize support for common policies 

46

among different interest groups; educate the public about 

public issues; and provide structure and rules for the society’s 

political debate. In some political systems, ideology may be an 

important factor in recruiting and motivating party members. 

In others, economic interests or social outlook may be more 

important than ideological commitment. 

Party organizations and procedures vary enormously. On 

one end of the spectrum, multiparty parliamentary systems can 

be tightly disciplined organizations run almost exclusively by 

full-time professionals. At the other extreme is the United States, 

47

Aggressive questioning of political gures is routine in free societies. Above, a journalist 

directs a question at a French presidential candidate.

Open access to judicial proceedings is part of the free ow of information. Here, a man in 

China watches a televised trial.
where rival Republican and Democratic parties are decentralized 

organizations functioning largely in Congress and at the state 

level — which then coalesce into active national organizations 

every four years to mount presidential election campaigns. 

Election campaigns in a democracy are often elaborate, timeconsuming, and sometimes silly. But their function is serious: 

to provide a peaceful and fair method by which the people can 

select their leaders and determine public policy.

48

Interest Groups and NGOs

A citizen of a democracy may be a member of a number 

of private or volunteer organizations — including interest 

groups that try, in some fashion, to inuence public policy and 

persuade public officials of their views. Critics may decry the 

inuence of “special interests,” but all citizens recognize that 

every democracy protects the right of such interest groups to 

organize and advocate for their causes.

Many traditional interest groups have been organized 

around economic issues; business and farm groups, and labor 

unions still wield powerful inuences in most democratic 

systems. In recent decades, however, the nature and number 

of interest groups has grown and proliferated enormously to 

encompass almost every area of social, cultural, and political, 

even religious, activity. Professional organizations have risen 

to prominence, along with public interest groups that support 

causes — from improved health care for the poor to protection 

of the environment — that may not directly benet their 

members. Governments themselves may function as interest 

groups: in the United States, associations of state governors, 

big-city mayors, and state legislatures regularly lobby the U.S. 

Congress on issues of concern to them.

The dynamics of interest group politics can be complex. 

Numbers matter — groups with large national followings will 

draw automatic attention and hearings from public officials. 

But in many cases, small, tightly organized groups that are 

49

Connecticut senatorial candidate Joseph Lieberman courts reghters in 2006. Interest 

groups are wooed and won by politicians one at a time. 
strongly committed to their issues can exercise inuence out of 

proportion to their numbers.

One of the most striking developments in recent 

decades has been the emergence of internationally based 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In attempting to 

serve the needs of a community, nation, or cause, which 

may be dened globally, these NGOs try to supplement or 

even challenge the work of the government by advocating, 

educating, and mobilizing attention around major public 

issues and monitoring the conduct of government and private 

enterprise. 

Governments and NGOs frequently work as partners. 

50

Non-governmental organizations work worldwide. Here, a Uganda aid worker uses a solarpowered computer provided by an American NGO.

NGOs may provide expertise 

and personnel on the ground 

for implementation of 

government-funded projects. 

NGOs may be politically 

unaffiliated, or they may be 

based on partisan ideals and 

seek to advance a particular 

cause or set of causes in the 

public interest. In either model the key point is that NGOs 

operate under minimal political control of states. 

John Sweeney, head of the U.S. Federation in labor organizations, AFL-CIO, addresses a 

meeting. Trade unions are still important interest groups.

51

A eld worker for a British NGO removes and 

stores a land mine in Sri Lanka.
48

Civil-Military Relations

I

ssues of war and peace are the most momentous any nation 

can face, and at times of crisis, many nations turn to their 

military for leadership.

Not in democracies.

In democracies, defense issues and threats to national 

security must be decided by the people, acting through their 

elected representatives. A democracy’s military serves its nation 

52

rather than leads it: Military leaders advise elected leaders and 

carry out their decisions. Only those who are elected by the 

people have the ultimate authority and the responsibility to 

decide the fate of a nation. This principle of civilian control and 

authority over the military is fundamental to democracy.

Civilians need to direct their nation’s military and decide 

issues of national defense, not because they are necessarily 

wiser than military professionals, but precisely because they 

are the people’s representatives and, as such, are charged with 

the responsibility for making these decisions and remaining 

accountable for them.

The military in a democracy exists to protect the nation and 

the freedoms of its people. It must not represent or support any 

particular political viewpoint or ethnic or social group. Its loyalty 

is to the larger ideals of the nation, to the rule of law, and to 

the principle of democracy itself. The purpose of a military is to 

defend society, not dene it.

Any democratic government values the expertise and 

advice of military professionals in reaching policy decisions 

about defense and national security. But only the elected 

civilian leadership should make ultimate policy decisions 

regarding the nation’s defense — which the military then 

implements.

Military gures may, of course, participate as individuals 

in the political life of their country, just like any other citizens. 

Military personnel may vote in elections. All military personnel, 

however, must rst withdraw or retire from military service 

53

Ukranian soldiers examine ballots in Kiev in 2002. 
before becoming involved in politics; armed services must 

remain separate from politics. The military are the neutral 

servants of the state and the guardians of society.

54

U.S. military cadets throw their hats in the air upon graduation. A professional military 

needs to be as well educated as its civilian overlords.

The Culture of Democracy

Human beings possess a variety of sometimes contradictory desires. People want safety, yet relish adventure; they aspire 

to individual freedom, yet demand social equality. Democracy 

is no different, and it is important to recognize that many of 

these tensions, even paradoxes, are present in every democratic 

society.

Conict and Consensus

According to scholar and writer Larry Diamond, a central 

paradox exists between conict and consensus. Democracy 

is in many ways nothing 

more than a set of rules 

for managing conict. At 

the same time, this conict 

must be managed within 

certain limits and result in 

compromises, consensus, 

or other agreements that all 

sides accept as legitimate. 

An overemphasis on 

one side of the equation 

can threaten the entire 

undertaking. If groups perceive democracy as nothing more than 

a forum in which they can press their demands, the society can 

shatter from within. If the government exerts excessive pressure 

55

Democracy needs both conict and consensus. 

In this photo, men in Sierra Leone discuss law.
56

to achieve consensus, stiing the voices of the people, the 

society can be crushed from above. 

There is no easy solution to the conict-consensus 

equation. Democracy is not a machine that runs by itself once 

the proper principles are inserted. A democratic society needs 

the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of 

intellectual and political conict as well as the necessity for 

tolerance. From this perspective, it is important to recognize that 

many conicts in a democratic society are not between clearcut “right” and “wrong” but between differing interpretations of 

democratic rights and social priorities.

Education and Democracy

Education is a vital component of any society, but especially 

of a democracy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If a nation expects 

to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what 

never was and never shall be.” 

There is a direct connection between education and 

democratic values: in democratic societies, educational content 

and practice support habits of democratic governance. This 

educational transmission process is vital in a democracy 

because effective democracies are dynamic, evolving forms of 

government that demand independent thinking by the citizenry. 

The opportunity for positive social and political change rests 

in citizens’ hands. Governments should not view the education 

system as a means to indoctrinate students, but devote 

resources to education just as they strive to defend other basic 

needs of citizens.

In contrast to authoritarian societies that seek to inculcate 

an attitude of passive acceptance, the object of democratic 

education is to produce citizens who are independent, 

questioning, yet deeply familiar with the precepts and practices 

of democracy. Chester E. Finn Jr., a senior fellow at the Hoover 

Institution on education policy, has said: “People may be born 

with an appetite for personal freedom, but they are not born 

with knowledge about the social and political arrangements 

that make freedom possible over time for themselves and their 

57

An educated citizenry is, potentially, a free citizenry.
children. ...Such things must be acquired. They must be learned.” 

Learning about democracy begins in school; it continues 

throughout a life of civic involvement, and curiosity about the 

many kinds of information accessible in a free society.

Society and Democracy

Democratic constitutionalism is ultimately the foundation 

by which a society, through the clash and compromise of ideas, 

institutions, and individuals, reaches, however imperfectly, for 

truth. Democracy is pragmatic. Ideas and solutions to problems 

are not tested against a rigid ideology but tried in the real world 

where they can be argued over and changed, accepted, or 

58

discarded.

Scholar Diane 

Ravitch observes: 

“Coalition-building 

is the essence of 

democratic action. It 

teaches interest groups 

to negotiate with 

others, to compromise, 

and to work within the 

constitutional system. 

By working to establish 

coalition, groups with 

differences learn how 

to argue peaceably, how to pursue their goals in a democratic 

manner, and ultimately how to live in a world of diversity.” 

Self-government cannot always protect against mistakes, 

end ethnic strife, guarantee economic prosperity, or ensure 

happiness. It does, however, allow for public debate to identify 

and x mistakes, permit groups to meet and resolve differences, 

offer opportunities for economic growth, and provide for social 

advancement and individual expression.

The late Josef Brodsky, Russian-born poet and Nobel Prize 

winner, wrote, “A free man, when he fails, blames nobody.” It is 

true as well for the citizens of democracy who, nally, must take 

responsibility for the fate of the society in which they themselves 

have chosen to live. 

59

Using one’s energy fully for one’s own goals fosters 

individual identity.

Education frees the spirit from the mundane, as with these Turkish university students.
Democracy itself guarantees nothing. It offers instead 

the opportunity to succeed as well as the risk of failure. In 

Thomas Jefferson’s ringing but shrewd phrase, the promise of 

democracy is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 

Democracy is then both a promise and a challenge. It is a 

promise that free human beings, working together, can govern 

themselves in a manner that will serve their aspirations for 

personal freedom, economic opportunity, and social justice. It 

is a challenge because the success of the democratic enterprise 

rests upon the shoulders of its citizens and no one else. 

60

Page 1: North Wind Picture Archives. 2: © Bettmann/CORBIS. 

5: Javier Medina/AP Images. 6: Toby Talbot/AP Images. 8: 

© John Berry/Syracuse Newspapers/The Image Works. 9: 

© Greg Friedler/Jupiterimages. 10: Georgios Kefalas/AP 

Images. 11: Library of Congress, LC-USZC4-9904. 14: © Paul 

Hilton/epa/CORBIS. 

16: © Lynsey Addario/CORBIS. 17: © Patrick Gardin/AP 

Images. 19: Courtesy IFES. 20: Schalk Van Zuydam/AP 

Images. 21: Micelle Bachelet/AP Images. 22: © 2007 Patricio 

Realpe/archivolatino/Redux. 23: AFP/Getty Images. 24: 

Rebecca Blackwell/AP Images. 26: Matt Rainey/Star Ledger/

CORBIS. 29: Ted S. Warren/AP Images. 

30: © Bettmann/CORBIS. 33: Cheryl Hatch/AP Images. 35: 

AFP/Getty Images.

36: Photography Deryc Sands/UK Parliament Copyright. 

39: Bru Garcia/AFP/Getty Images. 40: Frazer Harrison/Getty 

Images. 41: Alessandra Tarantino/AP Images. 

43: Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images. 45: Karel Prinsloo/AP 

Images. 46: © Owen Franken/CORBIS. 47: Natalie Behring/

Reuters. 48: Bob Child/AP Images. 50: Andrew Lichtenstein/

CORBIS. 51: Euan Deholm/Reuters – Kamal Kishore/Reuters. 

52: © Reuters/CORBIS. 54: Mark Wilson/Getty Images. 55: 

L. Lartigue/USAID. 57: © Ted Spiegel/CORBIS. 58: © Lynsey 

Addario/CORBIS. 59: Jupiterimages. 60: © Rob Crandell/The 

Image Works. 

Editor-in-Chief—George Clack

Executive Editor—Mildred Solá Neely

Managing Editor—Paul Malamud

Writer—Howard Cincotta

Art Director—Ted Miksinski 

Cover Designer—Paul Zwolak

Photo Research—Maggie Johnson Sliker

Graphic Designer—Sylvia Scott

Consulting Editor:

Philippa Strum, Director, Division of U.S. Studies, Woodrow 

Wilson International Center for Scholars. 

Freedom permits people to live a peaceful, private life.