Essay: The history of democracy

The history of democracy is nothing short of messy. A crucial understanding of the foundations of the most significant, and sometimes oldest, democratic systems aids our understanding of the modern democratic systems we see today. Democracy initially sparks thoughts of government, but we cannot overlook its role in many of the most successful organizations and effective leaderships. Effective democratic practices feel and look great and, because of this, so many groups of people, regardless of purpose, naturally mold into democratic organizations. A hard look at the conditions, features, premises and challenges that democratic systems have faced and will continue to face paves the way for a better understanding of how to maintain democracy, not only in the world of politics, but in many facets of our world today.
A Brief History
The original creation of Democracy is tough to define because the few ancient systems that were once in place eventually disappeared. The Greek and Roman empires did not create democratic systems that evolved into what the world sees today and it is difficult to determine how much of what we know about Democracy was drawn from the ancient empires.
According to Robert Dahl (1998), much of the expansion of democracy came to be because of the diffusion of ancient democratic ideas and practices, but diffusion is only part of the puzzle. Democracy was not created once and for all; Democracy came about in multiple places and many different times. Dahl claims that if the conditions are favorable, democracy can exist. He claims democracy can be invented and reinvented wherever and whenever the conditions are right (Dahl, 1998, p. 9).
Robert Dahl (1998) claims that Democratic participation is likely to stem from ‘the logic of equality’. The hunter-gatherer era, where people naturally grouped together for decision making and were not influenced by outside sources of power, serves as a fine example of one of the first historical accounts. Groups of people were able to accomplish tasks through this system with the assumption that the group had equal abilities to get tasks done and therefore, govern the group. When people settled down and ‘the logic of equality’ existed this “primitive” form of democracy was the most natural governing system (p.10).
Times changed as groups of people settled in one place for a long period of time began to experience new power dynamics. The concepts of group identity and assumptions of equality were lost as outside influence interfered and hierarchy and domination reigned supreme. Unanimous governments were replaced with monarchies, despotisms, aristocracies and oligarchies created on  the basis of ranking. It was not until near 500 B.C.E. that in some places, favorable conditions existed again. Conditions allowed for the development of governmental systems where participation in group decisions became a group opportunity. History shows evidence of this in the Mediterranean and Europe (p. 11).
Near the time of 500 B.C.E classical Greece and Rome established governmental systems based on popular participation which were strong enough to survive for centuries. It was in 507 B.C.E. that Athens, one of Greece’s hundreds of city-states, adopted a system of popular government that lived until Macedonia conquered it in 321 B.C.E. Most believe it was the Athenians who coined the terms Demos (people) and Kratos (to rule). The complex democratic system was then made up through the use of a lottery to choose an assembly and then an election for public officials. This original system of Greek democracy was not used for the development of modern democracy (p. 11).
The Roman system, their Republic, differed from the Greeks. They also coined theirs using res (thing, affair) and publics (public) to form the “thing that belonged to the people” (p. 13). Similar to the Greeks and all democracies up until the 20th Century, rights were only given to men. The Republic originally restricted participation to patricians and aristocrats, but eventually the plebs were granted participation. Rome grew substantially during this time through conquest and the Republic had the power to grant citizenship, which was valued highly by those affected due to the change in status it gave them. With this in mind, it seems that Rome never adapted the modern idea that a democratic system should be representative of the population governed as the citizen assemblies were not local for the growing Roman citizenship (p. 13). The Republic lived until 130 B.C.E. when the dictator, Julius Caesar, ended it. Even after Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C.E., the Republic never revived itself and Rome became an empire and popular rule ceased to exist until 1100 C.E. (p. 14-15).
Popular rule appeared once again in Southern Europe in places like Northern Italy, but participation was strictly limited to nobles, land-owners and other upper-class citizens. Rising members of the population soon found themselves organizing to uprise and eventually gain participation, but this did not last long as emerging nation-states soon conquered city-states and eradicated popular government once again (p. 14-15).
The democratic systems of ancient Rome and Greece lacked important characteristics of modern democracy. Modern democracy requires an effective “national parliament composed of elected representatives and popularly chosen local governments” to work with it (p. 17). dThe first examples of this style of government began in Scandinavia, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain and other northern countries. The common trend among these systems was that their governments started small and local graduated to regional and national levels.
From 600 C.E. to 1000 C.E. the Vikings organized and identified with local level ‘Ting’ assemblies, originating in Trondheim, that created laws, chose kings who swore faithfulness to the laws, decided religion and settled disputes. Their ability to govern effectively showed as Ting assemblies grew beyond Trondheim to the rest Scandinavia by 900 C.E. and the King. Knowledge of previous democratic systems did not exist and their assemblies flourished on the “logic of equality” among freemen (p. 19), but also noting that not all men among Vikings were free as slavery did exist. The effect of the Ting assemblies was growth and adaptation as knowledge spread to Iceland and beyond. The creation of national assemblies in Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden happened during this time, but to different extents among nation-states. It was during this time that Kings began  to gain more influence over the assemblies (p.20).
The forecast for the Netherlands and Flanders was a bit different as rulers sought approval from wealthy citizens to tax their possessions and rulers held meetings of representatives from wealthy towns and important social classes. While this system does not transfer over to modern democracy in a literal way, the traditions and trends seen here are evident in development of popular government (p. 20-21).
The establishment of parliament looked differed in Britain as assemblies were summoned, not on a regular bases, but out of pure need due to a corrupt King. Parliament and the King ironically worked as a system by disabling the other from securing complete power. The House of Lords represented the “hereditary aristocracy” and was controlled by the people in the House of Commons. Laws created by either of the two were examined by independent judges. This created a system of checks and balances to be admired by Europeans and Americans. The foundation of American government stems from this example of checks and balances, but eliminates the role of the monarchy (p.22).
While great knowledge appeared through the trials and tribulations of ancient democracies, many questions were left unanswered when looking at what modern democracy looks like today. After examining the classical systems it seems that inequalities existed and a lack of representation in regards to participations existed. While we saw a glimpse of “checks and balances” there was still an obvious trend moving towards the control monarchies and aristocracies would continue to have in regards to power over the people and power of representation. In comparison to modern democracy, ancient systems were not a unanimous need or desire for the people. After examining the histories of these strong efforts, it seems that the longevity of democracy was not promising and truly depended on the area of focus.
Ideal v. Actuality
Dahl argues that there is an ideal democracy and an actuality and, while they are different, they are connected. He argues that there are questions to be answered such as: “What is Democracy?” And “Why Democracy?” (p. 29) What is democracy? It is a difficult task do define democracy by examining singles examples because the variety of democracies is incredible. When defining democracy, one has to realize that there is no universal definition of how a democracy should exist, but it is best defined by the rules and principles (a constitution) that is based off of the key idea that “all the members are to be treated as if they were equally qualified to participate in the process of making decisions about the policies the association will pursue” (p. 37). Dahl believes there are five standards to be met to ensure that all members are equally entitled to participate in the organization’s decision-making process. An ideal democracy would, by definition, meet all five standards and an actual democracy actively work towards achieving the five.
The criteria for a democratic process are explicitly stated as effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda and inclusion of adults. These criteria play a crucial role in ensuring that all members are given an equal opportunity to help determine the policies of their association. No opportunity should be greater than another and no vote should carry more weight than another. The criteria act as a means to include everyone, inform everyone and hold everyone accountable to holding true to the idea of equality. While this does not answer the question “what is a democracy” in full, it helps to start conversation. With the background of criteria for a democracy, we can push forward and contemplate if this criteria is ever fully attainable. How does such a luminous set of criteria help to create effective systems of democracy and how can we be sure that this set is all there is to it?
When attempting to address the question “why democracy?” Dahl uses the term democracy as actualities rather than the ideal form mentioned before. This is not asking why the people want a democracy, but how a democracy can best serve the people. He gives ten desirable consequences of democracy (p.45) that should benefit all people equally. Democracy serves the people by avoiding tyranny, ensuring essential rights, granting personal freedom, allowing for self determination, opportunity for developing personal moral autonomy, human development, protection of essential personal interests, political equality, seeking peace and providing an economy and education in hopes of prosperity.