THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY

Part One:
The entire world is in transition. The developed parts of it, principally the nations of
the so called “West”, have achieved multi-generational democracies, while most of
the world’s population still lives under regimes that are thinly disguised vestiges of
8th century, pre-democratic autocracies.
There is always a local transitional moment, that chaotic time period before the
achievement of any democracy in a given place but after the demise of the
predecessor regime. Whenever the identifiable trajectory of change is toward a more
democratic situation a new transitional model tends to emerge. This model
is_proto__-democracy._
Chaos accompanies these transitions. In these situations it can fairly be said that
democracy is civil war by other means. In fact, this is one definition of a proto-
democracy. The realization of Fukuyama’s dream will be hard fought, and the
outcome in most of the world will be problematic for the entire 21st century.
Some Broad Definitions.
As we go through the following list of elements, three things should be apparent:
Five Elements of Viable Democratic Governance
A viable mechanism that produces objectively verifiable election results at
regular intervals such that the process cannot merely be cancelled by the winners
of the prior election.
Sufficient civil order (think of violent tribal rivalries) that an election can be
carried out in practical terms such that the will of a decisive majority of the people
can reasonably be determined.
An implementing legal system that accords primary legitimacy, authority, and
official power to the majority’s will (via its elected representatives or otherwise) as
determined by valid elections.
A modality of governance that gives all significant minorities and their allied
groups an ongoing representative voice in policy formation (thus obviating the
incentive for civil war by providing a stake in the process).
A modality of governance that always allows minority opinion to be heard and
debated (allowing for the possible exception of the overt incitement to a civil war
against democracy itself as inadmissible advocacy).
Thus democracy is not federalism, as such, though it is equally compatible with
its adoption or non-adoption. And democracy requires robust protections for speech
and political communication, though not necessarily to the same degree expected by
US citizens.
The central, democratic authority, therefore, may or may not allow for autonomy,
semi-autonomy, or even the division of subordinate local authority in matters of law,
policy or governance. It may or may not tolerate all speech equally. These are
questions of democratic style.
The Sixth Element
I am worried by Fukuyama’s reliance on the ultimate utility of democracy as a
guarantor of success. Because ideas matter in history, their source and ultimate
authority also matters. As I hint below in a brief sketch of the American
Enlightenment, it matters greatly whether one’s values are rooted outside utility
calculation, whim, or tribal ethos. The men and women in Britain who gave blood,
sweat and tears to oppose the Nazis didn’t fight for Jeremy Bentham’s “greatest
good for the greatest number.” They fought for God and country.
These issues are deeply philosophical, well beyond the scope of this essay. But I
need to point out that when the democratic emperor has no clothes, he will not be
respected. The philosophical underpinnings of democracy need to much stronger
than “it just works better” to get us through the current crisis. The founders of the
American experiment got that part right. Democracy requires not only an
implementing legal system, in the American case one inherited directly from the
English, but an underlying meta-normative structure that supports the whole project.
Democracy was, for the founders, an institution solidly founded on natural law, the
set of authentically universal norms that were powerful enough to apply with equal
force to the governed and those who would aspire to rule. Theism, deism, and
secular universalism converged in the natural law consensus to form a solid
normative foundation for the daring new idea that individuals could gather together
and self govern as free individuals.
The Threat of Tribalism
The developed “West” has been infected with “post-modernism”, a loosely defined
world view that might be more truthfully described as “post-Enlightenment” because
of its sharp departure from key features of the 18th Century Enlightenment
consensus. The uniquely American version of the Enlightenment (Jefferson, Franklin
and Hamilton, among other founding personalities, were enlightenment intellectuals)
was the philosophical basis for the modern democratic movement. The two essential
Enlightenment premises that support the modern democratic model are: (a) the
assertion that the innately free individual, including his/her natural aims and agendas
(life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) is the normative touchstone for all
governmental authority (consent of the governed); and (b) the assertion that a
natural moral order that transcends regents and governments from which the basis
of the first premise emerges (as in endowed by the creator with certain natural rights).
It is important in this short sketch to recall that the American and French versions of
the Enlightenment shared a common rejection of class privilege but differed on the
matter of “equality”. The French became obsessed with the project of erasing natural
differences between individuals to achieve a (non-achievable) equality in fact, while
the American version accepted these differences as subsumed in the equality of
equal endowment of natural rights (all are endowed with the right to life, etc., and are
equal in that “first condition” sense). These versions are in competition to this day.
Post-modernism is an attack on the natural law underpinnings of the Enlightenment
because of its inherent subjectivity. Thus, the intelligentsia opened the doors to neo-
tribalism, by disarming us against the general notion that “collectives” (i.e., human
sub-groups, especially “victim” collectives, but by extension races and other
groupings) had equal normative standing or even greater standing than individuals.
A tendency to revert to atavism always lurks under the safeguards of modern
civilization and tribalism (as the notion that loyalty, right and wrong are primarily tribal
in nature) has rushed through the opening created by the post-modern intellectuals.
The cultural and normative underpinnings of Western democracy are being attacked
by tribalism’s powerful ally, cultural relativism, as if by a powerful computer virus.
American culture was partially inoculated as a result of the commitment of its
founders to the natural law branch of the Enlightenment.
Most of the world is still ruled by the tribalist mindset and it is no small matter to
change such an ingrained patter of thinking. When an equally deeply ingrained tribal
religion mutates into the ideology of conquest, the future of democracy cannot be
taken for granted. This is the challenge of Islamo-fascism.
The Risks
A proto-democracy can be defined as a governance structure with some democratic
or quasi-democratic elements that is authentically in the process of moving to
achieve all five essential elements above. To qualify as authentic we would normally
expect to see concrete steps in play that are reasonably designed to implement
elements 1 and 3 at the earliest practicable stages.
 Based on these criteria, we can say that the provisional government of Iraq is a
proto-democracy, but the established government of mainland China is not.
The government of post-Soviet Russia is, by this test, an authentic, though fragile
and developing democracy, as are India, Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina.
Is our democracy secure? We are at sea in an 18th century wooden vessel. The
moral and cultural relativists who came after the shipwrights are merrily chipping
away belowdeck. In case you haven’t noticed, the ship has listed to the left and we
are taking water. In Part Two, I explore the challenges posed by the terror war.
Several cultural and political forces, all promoted or permitted by the post-modern
ethos, threaten to degrade and ultimately destabilize American democracy:
Delivered Voters: The exploitation of large sub-groups of vulnerable, easily
manipulated voters: especially tribal sub-populations barely assimilated and not
fully acculturated, controlled by their tribal leaders. This is a reversion to early
American urban democratic abuses in which local ethnic bosses “delivered” whole
elections. Large scale Islamist immigration in Europe is the canary in this mine.
Importation of populations who are not part of the prevailing democratic
consensus can gain the franchise and radically alter the democratic model.
Voter Fraud via “Delivered Non-Voters” especially the registration of illegal
immigrants, felons, children, drug addicts, and non-residents. As the former, easily
exploited and manipulated populations become more assimilated, educated and
less amenable to being “delivered” there arose a “vote market” for replacement
voters, hence this development.
More Voter Fraud. The possibility of other, more sinister forms of fraud has
been raised by touch screen, unverified absentee, and internet voting. All these
forms of fraud tend to delegitimize a particular democratic process, leading to
decreasing voter turnout, close elections being decided by an even smaller pool of
voters, and a general disenchantment with the process.
Centralized control of the media. At its zenith during the 70’s and 80’s, the
dominant media spoke with a single voice such that headlines, magazine covers
and lead stories on the evening news were as well coordinated as oil prices. The
advent of the internet and information radio (as lower cost points of public access
for opinion and discussion) has mitigated this centralization tendency.
The de facto monopoly of professional politicians. Political life is increasingly
the province of the former interns and assistants of elected or appointed officials
who, after a period of apprenticeship, are placed in an open seat where they
become part of the interlinked cohort of like-minded office holders. Term limits is a
feeble attempt to control this pattern, producing the unintended side effect of
musical chair office holders. In California, for example, a former governor, now
mayor, negotiates with an attorney general, himself a former assembly member,
who now wants to be governor, allowing the to-be-former mayor, former governor
(are you following this?) to try his hand at being AG. Only charismatic Hollywood
actors seem to be able to break the pattern. On lower levels the term limits dance is
even more prevalent. These developments are directly related to low voter turnout
which presages high voter burnout.
None of these threats to American democracy are irreversible and, to date, none
directly threaten the institution itself. But during a time of peril, it becomes even more
important that democracy play to its greatest strength: that its leaders are recognized
as fully legitimate because they represent the people’s best choice.
PART TWO:
Our War For Survival
A commonplace point of agreement between some on the right and left is a slogan:
that George W. Bush has “won the war and lost the peace”. This is patent nonsense.
We have not won the war and we had no peace to lose. Afghanistan and Iraq are
just early, multi front battles in a larger war against Western democracy that we did
not seek but must not lose.
Given our reduced military resources, downsized since the end of the Cold War (cut
2 and ½ divisions following Gulf War, Phase1) and the limitations of domestic politics,
this president has moved more boldly, forcefully and effectively to respond to the
threat than any plausible alternative in either party. Only when the next president is
elected, (presumably when Mr. Bush is reelected), can we expect further action of
the kind the situation calls for. The furor surrounding Mr. Bush’s first election was just
one more of the ongoing challenges to existing democratic systems of governance in
the world. There was, in effect, a second, de facto election for president in the
immediate wake of 9-11, during which the questions surrounding W’s legitimacy
were effectively forgotten. Mr. Bush moved as forthrightly as any president with a
mandate. But a democratic leader at war needs the particular legitimacy that the
democratic process itself confers. The country needs a much more decisive election
outcome this time, more secure presidential authority as a result, and an even
stronger response to the challenge we face from radical Islam.
A Review of the Overall Crisis
The genesis of the struggle is an awakened pan-nationalist fervor among an
atavistic, dysfunctional and largely mentally disturbed population centered in the
Middle East. There are other such populations in the world, of course – after all this
is a description of normal life of an earlier period. But local conditions have isolated
these other peoples and societies to a degree that has permitted the West to “allow
time to do its thing”. This mindset might be described as evolutionary isolationism,
the general notion that primitive civilizations will eventually progress “at their own
pace”, and that the wisest policy of the more developed nations is benign non-
interference. Leaving aside the dubious wisdom of this form of isolationism when the
world is ever more tightly bound by the technologies of transport and
communications, the Middle East is a manifestly different case.
Geography, economic realities and the fungibility of deadly technologies have
conspired to force the West out of its isolationism. For the foreseeable future, the
architects of a world jihad are in a position to seize control of the economic jugular of
the West. By virtue of geographic and economic position, the jihadists, should they
capture even one significant oil producing state, are potentially capable of arming
themselves with true WMD’s, the kind capable of wiping out large populations_at__ a
distance_. In a single master stroke, all who stand in the way of jihad would have to
defer, or suffer the gravest consequences. And, as I reiterate below, the particular
mindset we face– promoting, as it does, suicidal aggression as virtue –makes the
overall threat dramatically more deadly. Consider: The Russians and the Chinese
were deterrable. A well armed jihad proto-state may not be.
We did not take this growing threat seriously in its earlier stages for several reasons,
all of which are founded in our collective complacency, lack of foresight, and
stubborn failure to grasp the magnitude of the unique danger posed when a truly
atavistic fanaticism is coupled with large scale 21st century weapons technology.
The West has been complacent on more than the narrowly materialistic level. The
creature comforts that are the gift of modernity are less disabling than the modernist
notion that we Westerners have arrived at the apex of a natural progression of
thought, and that the primitive world, suffused as it is with superstition and outmoded
religious beliefs, will simply fall like rotten fruit when exposed to our scientist,
materialist “values”. Ironically, the post-modern reality is spreading the notion that no
values are worth risking comfort much less life itself to preserve. Hence, a profound
weakening of value commitment more accurately defines the current Western ethos.
Populations seduced by the current level of comfort and complacency are very
difficult to rouse to self defense, particularly when the threat is striking elsewhere or
can somehow be temporarily contained, or (when all else fails) can simply be denied.
The modern jihad architects of the current war were not blind to this weakness.
As long as the restive Middle East population was divided and ruled by tribal leaders
whose regimes we in the West could “tame” via mutually beneficial economic
relationships, the potential threat was ignored. This space is far too limited to
chronicle the last 100 years of Middle Eastern history, but suffice it to say that the
emergence of a virulent pan Arab nationalism fueled and ignited by a fascistic
ideology based on Islam should not have been surprising.
Even now, the biggest obstacle to a truly pan-Arab force remains the Arab inter-
tribal rivalries (recalling the “religious” differences among major Arab groups are
tribal at root and that religions function as tribal ideologies). But the developments of
the last few years are troubling. At last a single scapegoat and rallying point has
emerged capable of uniting the pan-Arab jihad. It is no accident that the terrorists
have taken the war directly to the West, and principally seek to humiliate and gravely
damage the single most powerful representative of the decadent Western civilization
they seek to replace. We are a useful enemy.
To his enduring credit, and in spite of his rhetorical deficiencies, President, George
W. Bush swiftly arrived at a core understanding of the true nature and scope of the
threat. The isolationist tendencies of the Administration collapsed overnight when the
WTC Towers fell, the Pentagon was struck, and the White house (or Congress or
FBI Headquarters – we my never know which) were narrowly spared. He and his
national security team saw that we faced a huge interlinked terrorist network with
covert and overt state support whose overriding purpose was to create a pan-Arab
Islamist empire, a proto-state governing the entire Middle Eastern region, armed with
nuclear weapons, standing triumphantly over the smoking cinders of the hated Israel
and in control of most of the world’s petroleum supply. And he and his team (one of
the most savvy and accomplished national security teams in decades, whatever the
flaws in the intelligence apparatus) also saw that the pattern of terrorist attacks was
designed and intended to disable all forces that stand in the way of the Islamist
proto-state. We know the list: the U.S., Israel, the non-compliantArab States, and
Europe.
“W” has set US policy resolutely on the following course (the stability of which
depends on the disgraceful domestic political disruptions unprecedented in time of
war):
Hardening our domestic defenses. This is a work in progress, at best, and is
beset with bureaucratic inertia, civil liberties lawsuits, and the seeming political
inability to take strong measures to control our borders and to limit immigration.
Those problems acknowledged, in the real world of politics, my earlier observation
holds for both election cycles: Mr. Bush did more than any plausible alternative in
either party.
Forcing other regimes to deny all aid and comfort to terrorist efforts. Both
Afghanistan and Iraq are fully justified uses of military force on this count alone,
even if nation building falters. The demonstration of American power in support
of the “Bush doctrine” has had a salutary effect.
Preventing overtly hostile regimes (Iran & Korea) from acquiring a deliverable
nuclear weapons capability. Another work in progress. For domestic political
reasons this will happen via military action, if it does, early in a second term.
Establishing a semi-permanent US military base in the region not beholden to the
Saudis or any other unreliable regime. This is a state Pentagon goal and awaits
developments in Iraq.
Planting the democratic seeds of the counter-jihad in the region. This single effort,
with all the attendant problems, contains the key to averting the Islamist proto-state.
It may be the single most astute choice this administration has made, provided
the resources needed to guide Iraq along the proto-democracy course are not
denied.
To imagine that we have the raw capacity to “solve” the jihad problem with
nuclear weapons is a video game fantasy. The “country sized glass parking lot”
solution (only half seriously proposed by a friend) will not be a realistic option, either
in moral or practical terms. Only a comparable Cold War threat to our own cities
could possibly justify such a massive scale of threat response. In the real world, the
infliction of casualties in the millions, risking collateral catastrophic economic
damage to the world’s economy, could only come about as a necessary and
proportional response to a massive threat of similar scope under profound
emergency conditions. In my judgment, that simply isn’t going to happen.
But large scale military actions and brutal, intense small scale actions will certainly
be necessary.
For example, the time will come that we, a peaceful democracy, will consider
employing tactical nuclear weapons, including neutron bombs, to neutralize a
nuclear threat that can’t reasonably be safely eliminated by other means. The North
Koreans have most of Seoul within artillery and rocket range. Possible friendly
casualties following a North Korean response to a US attack might exceed one
million. Any military action against the North would necessarily have a preemption
component for these batteries north of Seoul. This logic might well justify the use of
tactical nuclear bombs.
In the larger Middle East we will most certainly have to use massive military force
once, twice, or three times again. For a time, Iran seemed poised to mutate in a
peaceful and democratic direction. A civil war may be needed. If the mullahs in
charge press forward with nuclear weapons development, we may not be able to
wait out the coming political revolution.
As a democracy, we are probably unable to reinstitute the draft in the absence of
another 9-11 scale attack. Fortunately, the modern military has traded technology for
soldiers, amplifying the effective destructive power on the ground of 1,000 soldiers a
thousand fold. But the stark truth is that we lack the field strength to simultaneously
occupy two countries the size of Iraq and Iran, yet we have the power to utterly
destroy the military capability of every nation in the region. And this is a step we may
yet be forced to take.
Under these complex circumstances, we should not so quickly fault our president for
proceeding with care. He is one of the few leaders actually capable of ordering the
kinds of serious military action that will probably be needed. This is a struggle for
nothing less than the survival of the democratic model of governance in the world.
We’ve planted a single seed in the Middle East. The contest has just begun.
In the article How Democratic Is America?, Howard Zinn, an idealist and liberal, spars
against Sidney Hook, a pragmatic conservative about the current system of democracy set
up in the United States. From the first concept of standards for America’s democracy, Zinn
and Hook hold conflicting viewpoints. While Zinn believes that we should “measure our
democracy against an ideal (if admittedly unachievable) standard”, Hook believes that “the
only sensible procedure in determining the absence or presence of equality from a
democratic perspective is comparative). Even though I agree with Zinn’s views on the
participation in decisions, access to education and the lacking spirit of cooperation in
America, Hook is correct in stating that for one to ignore improvements made from the past
is unreasonable.

The intricate system of democracy in the United States is all based on this idea of
representation. We vote for a representative in congress, who then votes by how he/she
believes the people want her to vote. What? Where is the voice of the people? Zinn
perfectly states that “no representative can adequately represent another’s needs; the
representative tends to become a member of special elite; the elected official develops an
expertise which tends toward its own perpetuation.” Hook then counters Zinn’s argument
by stating that then no society is democratic, “not even the direct democracies or
assemblies of Athens or the New England town meetings.” And indeed, that is the point!
There is truly no way to perfectly adhere to the voices of the people; Zinn understands this,
but at the same time, he doesn’t want us to settle for one system. Zinn needs the current
system of democracy to continue to evolve. One of the most obvious flaws of the current
system of representation is the fact that “the two major parties have am monopoly of
presidential power, taking turns in the White House.” Even though most Americans do not
identify themselves with either party, because the candidates of the minority parties “do
not have the access to the financial backing of the major parties, we just have to pick one of
the two that best fit our needs. Even worse, “both parties almost always agree on the
fundamentals of domestic and foreign policy, despite the election-year rhetoric which
attempts to find important differences.” This is obviously true - as I watch Barack Obama
and John McCain during debates and rallies, I realize how similar they sound on the issues of
energy and Israel. Both candidates wants to use clean coal, offshore drilling, wind turbines,
etc, and both want a strong relationship with Israel..

Zinn knows that education is key in determining an individual’s “wealth, political

power, social status, leisure, and the ability to work in one’s chosen field”. Unfortunately, as
the cost for citizens to attend college exponentially increases, more and more families are
finding it impossible to give their children the advantage of a higher education. The injustice
is obvious in this situation, “a mediocre student with student can always go to college. [Yet]
a mediocre student without money may not be able to go, even to a state college, because
he many have to work to support his family.” The equal opportunity to succeed is
completely undermined. Hook, however, argues that the “institution of a democratic society
should seek to provide an equal opportunity to all its citizens to develop themselves to their
full desirable potential.” And that the only way every citizen receives an equal opportunity
to succeed and access to education is if they were brought up by the state, because every
family is unique with different environments. Hook consistently takes Zinn’s words too
literally. Zinn is merely arguing that the government should step in and try its best to reduce
the overwhelming disadvantages that families face in the “poor section of the city, whether
white or black.” Which is rational in a democratic society that stresses the equality of
opportunity to succeed.

All the elements of a democracy (freedom, education, protection, etc), can only be
“sustained by a spirit in society, the tone and values of the culture.” Unfortunately, as Zinn
states, “so long as [the drive that keeps people going in the society] is for money and power,
with no ceiling on either, so long as ruthlessness is built into the rules of the democracy
does not have a chance.” Take the current financial crisis, because all of these powerful
companies were filled with greed, they accepted bad mortgages and sold stocks that didn’t
exist. Plus, with the loose regulation in America, this obviously wasn’t difficult. To cope with
the failing financial market, Congress passed a 700 billion dollar bail out bill - all thanks to
the innocent taxpayers’ money. “[This] is the uncontrolled libido of our society from which
the rape of our democratic values necessarily follows.” Once again, Hook blabs on about
how Zinn is exaggerating. Really? Hook says that “the voice and votes of Main Street still
count for more in a democratic policy than those of Wall Street. Congress has limited, and
can still further limit, the influence of money on the electoral process by federal subsidy and
regulation” - I wonder what he thinks now, as all the news stations and citizens in the
United States see differently.

The one point that I don’t see eye to eye with Zinn is how he measures democracy in
America. Although it may seem unrealistic, I agree with Zinn that “the ideal standard is the
pragmatic one; it affects what we do.” However, as Hook states, to completely dismiss the
progress that America has made from the past is irrational, because democracy is a process.
For example, Americans can “rightfully speak of progress of the African-Americans over the
days of unrestricted Jim Crow and lynching bees of the past.” I believe that comparing
ourselves to the past, and seeing drastic improvements give us hope and encouragement,
which can then give us motivation to further improve our democracy.

Even though Zinn may hold extreme leftist views, I agree with most of his
perspectives on the current democracy in the United States. I also believe that his refreshing
and honest look at the flaws of our democracy is an essential step towards addressing and
improving those shortcomings.

maintained, “democracy needs to be sustained by Americans

Half the country doesn’t even bother going out to the polls during the presidential
elections, and less than a third of the country even bother to vote in State elections. The
first step towards increasing turn outs require actively informing and introducing individuals
(especially those in underrepresented groups), to voting. The younger generation register
and vote less compared to the older age group, causing its interests to come second in
government policies (health care before student loans). Fortunately, countless opportunities
are available for the government to reach out and pull these young citizens in to register so
they are equally represented: student loans, military draft, after high school graduation,
after discharge from a juvenile supervision. If citizens were given the choice to register
during these integral events, I’m convinced the voting turn out would be overwhelmingly
higher.

One of the core values that Americans share is the equality of opportunity - every individual
should have an equal opportunity to succeed. Yet this value is under threat, and an angry
Howard Zinn criticizes the US for denying this right to its citizens in various aspects. I agree
with Zinn that the public lacks access to education and information, and that the spirit of
cooperation in America no longer exists - any defect in these three elements lead to a
society that fails to promote equality. Although I agree with Zinn that we must compare
ourselves to an ideal, as Hook stated, to completely overlook the progress that we have
made from the past is irrational.

Education is key in determining an individual’s “wealth, political power, social status,

leisure, and the ability to work in one’s chosen field”. Unfortunately, as the cost for citizens
to attend college exponentially increases, more and more families find it impossible to give
their children the advantage of a higher education. The inequality is obvious in this situation,
for “a mediocre student with student can always go to college. [Yet] a mediocre student
without money may not be able to go, even to a state college, because he many have to
work to support his family.” An equal opportunity to succeed is undermined and the gap
between the rich the poor just continues to grow.

Americans have been denied (especially in the last eight years), vital information
about their country’s foreign policy. Numerous times in America’s history, politicians have
been able to convince citizens that they have “special expertise which, if it could only be
revealed, would support its position against critics.” Not only can the government make up
lies to justify their actions (President Reagan about Grenada in 1983), the distribution of
information is a function of power and wealth. And since the government obviously has a
fair amount of control over the main stream media, the private media, critics of public policy
has no “equal time” to the public man. Thus, the private media lacks equal opportunity to
inform the public, and at the same time, since the public is robbed of vital information, it
has less say in political decisions.

Zinn understands that in order for there to be some sense of equality in access to
education, information, etc., “a spirit [of cooperation] in society” has to exist. And “as long
as [the] drive [that keeps people going] is for money and power, with no ceiling on either,
democracy does not have a chance [in America].” For example, Zinn shows us that the oil
that polluted California’s beaches occurred as a cause of a system that cared more about an
oil company’s profit than the need for a citizen to swim in clean water. Where is the sense
of equality? “If there is one crucial cause in the failure of American democracy, it is the drive
for corporate profit, and the overwhelming influence of money in every aspect of our lives.”

Zinn’s method of measuring America’s democracy against an ideal may seem

unrealistic and foolish, I agree that “the ideal standard is the pragmatic one; it affects what
we do.”
Top 10 Fully Democratic Countries of 2011
by redocean - on Feb 18th 2012 - 3 Comments

7532 Views

Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) published it 4th democracy index report for the year 2011
(as of beginning of December). This index gives a brief picture of the world wide democracy
including 165 independent states, 2 territories and covering almost all of the world’s
population and independent states excluding micro states. Ranking is done on basis of
Overall Democracy Index which is based on 5 categories: electoral process and pluralism;
civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture.
Four different regimes: full democracies; flawed democracies; hybrid regimes; and
authoritarian regimes are used for placing countries. For democracy fair and free elections
and civil liberties are essential requirements of democracy. It reveals that almost one-half of
the population of the world lives in some sort of democracy, although 11% only reside in full
democracies. More than one-third of the world’s population, some 2.6bn people, still lives in
the authoritarian rule (with a large share being in China).

According to this index, world’s top 10 democratic countries are as follows with their
measurement scoring in correspondence to EIU:

If you like This Article, you might be interested on Top 10 Powerful Leaders 2011.

Top 10 Fully Democratic Countries of 2011

10. Netherlands
Netherlands stands at rank 10 with an overall score of 8.99 in democracy index, 2011.
Electoral process got 9.58, government functioning is 8.93, political participation is 8.89,
political culture is 8.13 and civil liberties got 9.41 scoring. Score for 2010 and 2011 remained
the same as 8.99 and for both years the country stays on same rank. Capital of Netherland is
“Amsterdam”. It has population of 16,691,100. Per capita is $47,172 and nominal GDP is
$783.293 billion.

9. Finland

Rank 9 is for Finland in 2011, having the overall score of 9.06. Electoral process attains score
10, score 9.64 for government functioning, political participation is 7.22, political culture
attains score 8.75, and civil liberties receives score of 9.71. In 2010 it was on rank 7 with an
overall scoring of 9.19. Country’s capital is “Ottawa”. Its population is 34,575,000. GDP
(nominal) is $1.574 trillion, with per capita of $46,215.
8. Canada

Canada is on rank 8 in 2011 for democracy index having overall score of 9.08. Electoral
process receives 9.58, government functioning is 9.29, political participation attains 7.78,
political culture is 8.75 and civil liberties got score of 10. In 2010 Canada was on rank 9 with
same overall scoring 9.08. Canada’s capital city is “Bern”. Population of country is 7,866,500
having a nominal GDP of $512.065 Billion with $75,835 per capita.
7. Switzerland

In 2011, Switzerland is on rank 7 for the overall scoring 9.09. Electoral process attains score
9.58, score 9.29 for government functioning, political participation receives 7.78, political
culture attains score 9.38, and civil liberties receives score of 9.41.In 2010, Switzerland
stands on rank 8 with same scoring of 9.09. Its capital city is “Helsinki”. Its GDP (nominal) is
$239.232 Billion with $44,488 per capita income and a population of 5,388,417.
6. Australia

Overall score of 9.22 for 2011 democracy index gives Australia the rank 6. Electoral process
receives score 10, score 8.93 for government functioning, political participation attains 7.78,
political culture has score 9.38, and civil liberties has got score of 10. Australia stays on same
rank 6 with same scores of 9.22 for both years of 2010 and 2011. Its capital is “Canberra” and
population is 22,699,676. Its nominal GDP is $1.235 trillion with $55,589 per capita income.
5. New Zealand

In 2011 New Zealand maintains its rank 5 with same scores of 9.26 as in 2010. Electoral
process has got score 10, government functioning is 9.29, political participation has 8.89,
political culture is on score 8.13, and score for civil liberties is 10. Capital of New Zealand is
“Wellington”. It has population of 4,393,500. Per capita is $32,145 and nominal GDP is
$140.434 billion.
4. Sweden

In 2010 and 2011 democracy index for Sweden remains the same on rank 4 with constant
overall score of 9.50. Electoral process got 9.58, government functioning is 9.64, political
participation is 8.89, political culture is 9.38 and civil liberties got 10 scoring. Capital of
Sweden is “Stockholm”. Its population is 9,354,462. Nominal GDP is $443.718 Billion with
per capita income $47,934.

3. Denmark

In both years 2010 and 2011, Denmark attains rank 3 with same scoring of 9.52. Electoral
process got 10 score, government functioning attains 9.64, political participation is 8.89,
political culture receives 9.38 and civil liberties is 9.71. Denmark’s capital city is
“Copenhagen”. Population of country is 5,564,219 having a nominal GDP of $310.760
Billion wit
 h
$56,147 per capita.

2. Iceland

Iceland stays on rank 2 for years, 2010 and 2011, by maintaining score of 9.65. Electoral
process receives 10 score, government functioning has got 9.64, political participation
maintains at 8.89, political culture is 10 and civil liberties achieves the score 9.71. Capital of
Iceland is “Reykjavik”. It has a population of 318,452. Per capita is $39,025 and nominal
GDP is $12.594 Billion.

1. Norway
Constantly for 2010 and 2011, Norway is on rank 1 with a maintained overall score of 9.80.
Electoral process achieves the score10, government functioning maintains at 9.64, political
participation stays at score 10, political culture has got 9.38 and civil liberties attains the
score 10. Capital of Norway is “Oslo”. Its population is 4,984,100. Nominal GDP is $414.462
Billion with per capita income $84,443.

About the Author

redocean

Related News

Top 10 Most Notorious Traitors of All Times

- To begin with let us consider the very basic motives of the traitors. We can safely assert that most
of them did it for money...

Top 10 Powerful Leaders Who Lost their Powers in 2011

- The year 2011 has been a very strange year for many reasons. At one end you have the grace of
Prince Williams on the day...

3 Comments on "Top 10 Fully Democratic Countries of 2011"

1.

Cecily February 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm -

Nice, but this mixed up the capitals, GDP, and population of Canada, Finland, and
Switzerland. Whoops.

2.

Colonialist March 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm -

Is this a form of capital punishment introduced into some countries?

3.

Pori Khound April 17, 2013 at 3:35 pm -

nice

Translate

Find us on Facebook

Visit us on Google+

Weekly Popular Posts

1. Top 10 New Tech Gadgets 2012 - 104713 Views

2. Top 10 Most Dangerous Guns in the World - 87263 Views

 3. 10 Most Worst Facebook Conversations - 60515 Views

4. 10 Best Demotivational Posters Involving Animals - 45165 Views

5. Top 10 World’s Most Expensive Cars of 2012 - 43200 Views

6. 10 Most Best Wearable Gadgets - 42658 Views

7. 10 Signs Tells You’re Addicted To Facebook - 38148 Views

The World's Coolest Antique Cars All In One Place Bills Cheerleaders Subject to Illegal Workplace Rules?

6 Ways to Ace Negotiations with Wedding Vendors 15 Frequently Overlooked Red Flags in Relationships

Petting a Dog Gone Bad 'Heaven is for Real': A Film Made by Christians, for...

 Popular
 Comments
 Tags

Top 10 Most Dangerous Guns in the World

January 9, 2012, 51 Comments

Top Ten Bollywood Actresses of 2011-2012

January 30, 2012, 48 Comments

10 Most Amazing Facts About Dreams

March 1, 2012, 18 Comments
Top 10 World’s Most Expensive Cars of 2012
January 3, 2012, 14 Comments

Top 10 Upcoming Games of 2012

December 29, 2011, 12 Comments

Recent Posts

o Top 10 Best Cricket Teams in the World 2014

o Top 10 Most Interesting Facts about Alexander the Great
o 10 Tips to Save Yourself from a Costly Divorce
o The Best World War II Movies Based on Real Life Events
o Top 10 Reasons You Should Buy Xbox

Archives

o April 2014
o March 2014
o February 2014
o January 2014
o December 2013
o November 2013
o October 2013
o September 2013
o July 2013
o June 2013
o May 2013
o April 2013
o March 2013
o February 2013
o January 2013
o December 2012
o November 2012
o October 2012
o September 2012
o August 2012
o July 2012
o June 2012
o May 2012
o April 2012
o March 2012
o February 2012
o January 2012
o December 2011
o November 2011
All the Graphics on this blog are not our property nor any Image is under our Copyrights, All the
graphics have been taken from different sources, If any Graphic / Image is offensive or under your
Copyrights then please E-mail us to get it removed with in 24 hours eric@dumb.com Top Tens
ShareThis Copy and Paste

.............................................................................................
..............................................................................................

How many democratic countries are there in the world?

Which is the smallest democratic country in the world?



What are the non-democratic countries of the world?

What is the largest Democratic country in the world?

How many countries in the world are democratic?



What are the non-democratic countries in the world?

Name the democratic countries of world?

How many democratic countries in the world?



Which are the democratic countries in the world?

Which is the first democratic country in the world?

Name the democratic countries in the world?

 

Name of the non democratic countries in the world?

What are the top ten democratic countries in the world?

How many non democratic countries are there in the world?

List of non democratic countries of the world?

6 Famous Movie Lines That You've Been Saying Wrong

The 10 Ugliest Celebs According To Amanda Bynes

20 Worst Actors in Hollywood

Contributors Supervisors

Eric Alvarado

Trust: 1
  Updated Answer

Recommend Contributor »
»

Can you answer these?

Who was the primary sponsor of the amber alert bill?

In: Law & Legal Issues

Why is mobile phone signals better upstairs?

In: Mobile Phones

What is the effect of HIV on our body once it gets into the bloodstream?

In: HIV and AIDS

What is blender called in Telugu?

In: Food & Cooking

Top Contributors This Week

Keshia Davis

 Trust Points: 737

 Member Since: 8/12

Bringingthewood

 Trust Points: 2714

 Member Since: 3/09

Prioktan918

 Trust Points: 4893

 Member Since: 1/12

PiusX

 Trust Points: 3840

  Member Since: 5/09

4Jays

 Trust Points: 10110

 Member Since: 11/09

Can you answer these questions?

What main cities does Italy have?

What city claims the most residents in Italy?

Why do you love Paris?

What are characteristics of modern European cities?

What are the opportunities associated with being the first into a major new country market?

Relevant Answers

 Second largest democratic country in the world?

 List of non-democratic countries of the world?
 List of democratic and republic countries in the...?
 Show 10 democratic countries and 5 non-democratic...?
 How many countries in the world do not have any...?
 Name any four democratic countries of the world?
 Was austria a democratic country during World War...?
 Name any 15 democratic countries of the world?
 What are the present number of democratic...?
 What are all the free countries in the world?

Answers Prope

Top 10 Non Democratic Countries in World

1 year ago by anum 0

The biggest problem of the living beings is that we always need a path, we will need someone
to till us the difference between the right and the wrong, we need someone who would
resolve all our disputes, someone whose responsibility it becomes to maintain peace between
us; in a nutshell we always need a leader, a mentor or a guide. If you want to form a group,
the first thing which you need to figure out is who will serve as the leader of the group, who
will be their guide and who will serve as the leader.

The minorities have always faced problem in a nation or country but no one has had the
courage to speak up and to take a stand, and when that no one becomes someone, a spark
breaks out which turns into the flame and then lighten up the entire nation. The problems
have always existed among the minority but that flame was never ignited because no one had
the gallantry to lighten up the entire nations. The thing is that there is always a way to shine
even in the darkest hours of night only if someone remembers to switch one the lamp.

Earlier there were kings or emperors who served as the leaders of the nation but today there
are groups of people who run the state; they are known as the government. There are five
main kinds of government. First is the monarchy; in this kind of government the whole power
belongs to the king or queen. Second is the dictatorship; in this form the entire power belongs
to a person or a group of people. Third is the aristocracy; this is form in which the state is run
by the wealthy people and the power belongs to them. The fourth one is the republic in which
the people themselves select their leader or representative, who would fulfill their needs and
demands. The fifth and the best form of government is the democratic form of government;
the best known definition of a democratic government is “the government of the people, from
the people and for the people”.

Today in this modern world; when human rights are given such vital importance, there are
many countries which do not enjoy the democratic form of government. Among those
pernicious and non democratic countries the top 10 are:

10. LIBYA:

There is no permanent bases government in Libya as the country has been going under the
mercy of translational government. It is also said that the country runs under the military
dictatorship, some say that Libya is an authoritarian state and it is run under the impact of the
wealthy people; it doesn’t matter because what matters is that Libya does not enjoys
democracy . Libya liberated itself from Italy in December 1951. There are many political
parties in Libya but none of them has been able to form a stable and permanent government
yet.
9. IRAQ:

Earlier the form of government exercised by the state of Iraq was the dictatorship form of
government; the dictator was Saddam Hussein, who was hanged to death few years ago. Iraq
has also been through the deadly nightmare which is known as War. After that Iraq has had
no governmental system and has been living on bits and pieces; Also that some kind of civil
war has been going on in the state. These days plan are in process to introduce a new form of
government in Iraq which would be according to the demands of the citizen and would be
able to fulfill their desires.

8. CUBA:

This country is a Communist State; it is the form in which all the power belongs to only one
group or the wealthy people of the state. They control the income and economical growth of
the country. They can make the decisions which will solely benefit them, not the estate. The
human rights violation is very common in Cuba; human are nothing but the slaves of the
Aristocrats.

7. NORTH KOREA:
Before the World War 2 was started, North Korea was a member of the Japan territory. As
the war ended, many other things ended along with it and one of them was the alliance
between North Korea and Japan. North Korea was separated from Japan approximately in the
year 1945 under the leadership of Kim Il Sung. Sung started his own party with the support of
some other workers; the party is known as KWP (Korean worker’s party). Since the
independence of North Korea, the power has been in the hands of KWP and Sung family as
the positions in the party has kept passing along in the family till now.

6. JORDAN:

The form of government in Jordan is monarchy as the whole power is exercised by the King.
There is a whole legislative or cabinet which works under the king, the king also serves as the
Army chief. Although the form of government is technically monarchy but the citizens of
Jordan enjoy the liberty.

5. SAUDI ARABIA:

Saudi Arabia is one of the rich countries of the world. The system of the government in this
state is the Monarchy form of government as the entire power belongs to the King (who has
hold on country’s military forces as well). The king has appointed 13 governors for the 13
provinces of the country, but head of the state is the king who governs all the thirteen
governors. There is entire cabinet beneath the king to help him and advise him regarding the
social and economical issues of the country; the king himself also appoints his second in
command, who is known as the Crown Prince; the crown prince is next in line to the throne.

4. TURKMENISTAN:
For outsiders the form of government in Turkmenistan is said to the Democratic and
presidential form of government but from inside it is mainly authoritarianism; the entire
power belongs to the presidential administration. The government is also said to be Republic
but the leaders or the representatives barely represent the people, they care for their own
benefits.

3. SYRIA:

The form of government in Syria is recorded to be Republic; the government is run by the
people themselves. But this is only recorded government, actually the form of government in
Syria is said to be of dictatorship; States’ legislative branch is ruled by the People’s Council,
which is concede as a dictatorship by the outsiders.

2. AFGHANISTAN:
The form of government in Afghanistan is the translational one currently; as the country has
been in the state of wars for so many years and under such situation it is not possible to
maintain a stable government. The type of government in Afghanistan is technically Islamic
republic which means that the government is run by the people themselves under the
influence and guidance of Islamic laws.

1. CHINA:

China has the communist form of government as the entire political, military, social and
economical power belongs to the Chinese communist party. The economy of china is
blooming and the country is prospering but there is no such thing as Human rights in China;
the citizens are offered no liberty or independence. No freedom of expression or thoughts is
available for the Chinese citizens.

Google+

Tags: aristocracy, courage, darkest hours, democratic countries, democratic form of government,
democratic government, dictatorship, five main kinds, flame, form of government, gallantry, human
rights, imp, mentor, minorities, monarchy, nutshell, peace, queen, switch one
You may also like -

Top 10 Most Powerful Countries in the World Top

10 Countries with Cheapest Price of Diesel Top 10 Worst President of the

World all Time Top 10 Most Lawless Countries in the World

Top 10 Most Corrupt Countries of the World Top

10 Countries that have Best Relations with USA Top 10 Most Gay Friendly

Countries in the World Top 10 Poorest Countries In The World 2012

anum
Literacy, commonly considered the ability to read and write
at some level of proficiency, and more precisely defined as a
technical capability to decode written or printed signs,
symbols, or letters, combined into words. Basic literacy has
been explained in terms of its opposite by UNESCO in 1958,
which defined an illiterate person as someone “who cannot
with understanding both read and write a short simple
statement on his/her everyday life”.
Literacy Class in Tanzania The problem of illiteracy is more
widespread in the developing rather than the developed
nations. Compared to men, women in developing countries
are often badly catered for on an educational level. The
women above are attending a women’s literacy class in
Kangalore, Tanzania.S. Hackett/Panos Pictures
Because of the scale of the problem internationally, most
literacy surveys have used this basic definition. Though
subject to error by reason of the scale of the problem, the
level of illiteracy was summarized in 1995 by UNESCO and is
displayed in the accompanying tables. These figures are an
improvement on those for earlier decades. The latest
estimate of the total number of illiterate adults worldwide
is 885 million, of whom 565 million (64 per cent) are women.
The likelihood is that the total number of illiterate adults
will continue to decline because younger generations have,
with some important exceptions, had more experience of
school than their elders. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa,
however, rising populations and problems of political unrest,
and, in many areas, lack of resources have led to a rise in
illiteracy. The problem of basic illiteracy remains, therefore,
far from solved. One particularly serious element is the high
level of illiteracy among women, as compared to men, in
the Southern hemisphere.
According to a report released by the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF) on December 8, 1998—its annual
State of the World's Children Report—about 130 million
children between the ages of 6 and 11, including 73 million
girls, go without basic education. This shortfall has broad
implications for those children's welfare and, by extension,
for world peace and security. Although the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the 1989 Convention on
the Rights of the Child established the right to education as
a basic human right, more than 850 million people—about a
sixth of the world's population—would enter the 21st
century unable to read or write, UNICEF said. The problem
is worst in developing countries, but even countries such as
the United States face problems, such as educational
systems that fail to prepare students for the workforce. The
report devoted special attention to girls and women, who,
according to the report, comprise two thirds of the world's
illiterate population. Discrimination is a major impediment
to educating girls and women, but the rewards of
overcoming this bias are far-reaching. Educated women
were found to contribute more to the economic and
political life of their countries and have fewer and healthier
children than uneducated women. Their children were also
more likely to be educated themselves.
II FEMALE ILLITERACY
The disparities are gradually diminishing, but the problem
remains, as the 1998 UNICEF report highlighted.
International research and common observation confirm
the relationship between a mother’s literacy and the
educational prospects of her children, whether boys or girls.
Children up to adolescence spend more time with their
family, especially with their mother, than they do in school.
Therefore, the general educational level of the family is an
important element in any child’s education. It is often the
case that children who have difficulty reading have mothers
with similar difficulties.

More generally, there is an established relationship

between female illiteracy and high national fertility rates
and low life expectancies at birth. In some respects, literate
mothers are an important element in primary health care.
So, with these considerations in mind, international and
national agencies throughout the world are continuing to
support programmes designed to eliminate basic illiteracy,
paying particular attention to the problem of illiteracy
among women in some countries.
III DEFINING LITERACY
For anyone to take part effectively in an industrialized
society, far more than basic literacy is required. People with
minimal literacy skills may be described as “functionally
illiterate” if they are judged unable to use a variety of skills
beyond the reading or writing of a simple sentence. To be
functionally literate implies that a person can “use reading,
writing, and calculation for his or her own and the
community’s development”.
Many differing definitions of what is required by a
functionally literate person have been suggested. In 1990
the United States Department Survey assessed literacy
among a representative sample of young adults in three
areas. The first area concerns reading and interpreting
prose, as in newspaper articles, magazines, and books; this
was designated “prose literacy”. The second, “document
literacy”, concerns identifying and using information
located in documents, such as forms, tables, charts, and
indexes. The third, “quantitative literacy”, involves applying
numerical operations to information contained in printed
material, such as a menu, a chequebook, or an
advertisement.
This wider definition of literacy relates to the skills required
to function in a developed economic society. It bears little
relation to the reading comprehension tests widely used to
assess “literacy” in classrooms.