Talk:History of democracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Aragon Kingdoms

I can't find any reference to the Aragon Kingdoms of actual Spain - Catalonia, Valencia and Aragon itself. Three kingdoms with one single king and three parliaments with great powers lasting until teh XVIII century. The king has restricted his powers since 1283. So one of the eldest parliaments. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Catalonia to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.137.70 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch

I can't find any reference to the Dutch and their republic in the 16th century. Even for the US they already were a republic.

Europe

I cant find anything on the rise of democracy in Europe, not even a link. When did norwegians earn the right to vote? 1814 When did swedes, danes, germans? This is totally insufficent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.103.180 (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oldest existing democracy

How can the US claim to be the oldest democracy in the world when they still had a sizeable part of their population under slavery until the 1860's?64.129.84.194 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Old talk

"If the USA is considered a democracy then so must the Roman Republic." I recommend reading "Rubicon" by Tom Holland it is a very good book, it is about the fall of the free Roman Republic. You will be shocked by the similiarity between the two republics.

Rome is most definetly a democracy, I am suprised that Rome is not considered as a democracy in this article. And as to gerrymandering, all democracy cater to the aristocrats and the nobility. Do you think it would be cheap to run for the US Senate, you would need deep pockets. Our Forefathers were all aristocrats with a large majority wealthy Virginian plantation owners. Rome had Tribunes who represented the poor and created reforms and laws. Does any one think that this article needs a disclaimer for lack information?

If this is a history of democracy then why does it only cover Athens, Greece? Perhaps this should be renamed History of Democracy in Athens. freestylefrappe 00:02, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's incomplete. It needs sections on how the concept of democracy developed over the ages to where we're at now. I think the original author figured he would start the article and others would finish it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:42, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happened. The article started out as pretty much nothing, and I added one section. I'm collecting and going through some information right now, so I should be able to expand it soon if my schedule permits. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I will help you with this article soon, but a word of caution: if we do too much now, it may hamper the CotW, as the article will no longer be a stub :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know it was a COTW...I guess I'll do some offline work until it gets approved then (if it ever does) ;) [-Frazzydee|✍]

I'll edit whatever you guys can come up with. :) On top of that, if we could have content on the precursor thinking of Locke and others, as well as signature events/documents, such as the Magna Carta, U.S. Constitutional Convention ("debates" between thinkers of the time and the design of democratic institutions), etc., that would be great. The development of modern democracy has followed a long and storied path. But alas, I'm not enough of a historian or history buff to write this stuff well. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:22, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. freestylefrappe 20:56, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

locke, magna carta etc. are part of the liberal tradition, this has not much to do with Democracy. Democracy is a system where the majority decides, but the liberal tradition has given us checks and balances, the rule of law, independent judiciaries etc.

Overlap with Suffrage

FYI, this article has a lot of potential overlap with Suffrage. --Beland 07:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the info, it does have some useful material, although the history of suffrage is more like a subarticle to history of democracy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

cros references

in the article there are two references to ireland but i can find nothing there about the history of democracy

As for Irish democracy - I read an article about it 2 years ago in Polish. Since it is in references of my MA thesis, I will add it soon - today, I hope - when I have some time to check it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The exact source I used was Polish translation of English article by Murray N. Rothbard in Stańczyk 2/95 Celtycka Irlandia – przykład społeczeństwa anarchistycznego; str. 9-11. After a Google search I'd say it was a partial reprint or adaptation of his 'For a New Liberty' book. In Chapter 12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts online he writes about the tuaths - a kind of Ireland parliamets: "All 'freemen' who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their 'kings. (...) the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension (...) about 80 to 100 tuatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland (...)". I will adapt this to our article soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Please read a source on Ireland first; tuatha were hereditary... and Rothbard is v. original in his research Septentrionalis 23:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I will. You may want to point me to some sources or write an article about tuath to clarify this matter. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Try your favorite edition of the Britannica (especially the 11th) on 'Clan'. Septentrionalis 22:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Rothbard's description is ideologically driven and extremely misleading. Compare CLAN.

I am afraid this is a POV, there are many who claim Rothbard's book is good. Britannica is known for its mistakes as well. We most definetly need some academic (preferably) source to confirm any of those POVs. While your arguments may serve to NPOV the article, simply removing the paragraph is not acceptable, as it supports just one side of the argument. Please, expand the tuath related para in the article to illustrate your point, but don't delete it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ireland

"The tuath was thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes" Membership of a tuath was no more voluntary than membership in any other tribe, or indeed than citizenship in a modern state. Septentrionalis 18:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) " and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension." True only in the trivial sense that an Irishman could not usefully hold land outside the military control of his tuath, since any cattle he put on such land would be raided away as soon as the neighbors found out about them. The suggestion that each tuath held a patchwork quilt of land throughout Ireland as its members bought and sold real estate is simply false. Septentrionalis 18:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cite the Britannica because it is readily available on-web. The sources behind the Britannica are the histories of individual Irish and (Highland) Scotch clans, which are less readily accessible. Would it be of any use to name some? Septentrionalis 18:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it is of relevance to this article, yes. Otherwise, see if it can be used to expand clan article. AFAIK Britannica is pay per read. I have 2001 DVD edition but no acces to online one (not much desired). I have lost much faith in it after I read its Polish September Campaign info - not only it reapats myths, it states Polish casualties are unknown, when in fact they are known for 50 years and widely cited in many places (Polish PWN encyclopedia for example). Makes me wonder how many other errors Britannica has...but this is a bit OT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 1911 Britannica is out of copyright, and is available several places on the web. (See the article for links). Where it is not dated (as here), it is a better resource than the present Britannica - and I believe this to be a consensus among English-speakers. The present Wikipedia article on clans deals, properly, with the wider anthropological concept; but the Britannica would be a good start for a different article - I'm just not sure what to call it. Septentrionalis 21:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iceland

Althingi, an Icelandic parliament founded in 930 and open to all free men was the first example of real democracy since ancient Greece

My objections to this are:

• The Althing was not really a parliament and was not open to all free men. Membership in it was a property right, and zealously hoarded. When Burnt Njal's stepson wanted to enter it, Njal had to persuade the Althing to enlarge itself so a seat would be available.
• By the same token, it was not real democracy. It was an instance of large popular influence on government, and an inspiration for the modern Icelandic democracy. But it was preceeded by less elaborate moots all over Europe; see Thing (assembly).
• There were more or less democratic city-states under the Roman empire also, not all of them in Greece; from Palmyra to Marseilles.

regards, Septentrionalis 21:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the clarifications, they should be amended in the article. Again, simply removing the sections is not beneficial to the argument. And we are not arguing it was a real democracy. Besides trouble defining democracy, there was no democracy in (any of) the modern, 20th definitions before 20th centure. There were, however, societies with various democratic procedures on various decision making levels, and this is what that section is about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Althing (which is the direct link) was not open to all free men even in theory. Septentrionalis 17:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that any one place/time should be labeled "true" or "real" democracy. democracy seems an idea thats been evolving for a long time and is still evolving, so the HoD article should probably look more like "steps on the democratic path". Iceland's Althing is certainly a step. Many senates and parliaments have had nonelected representatives, and many still do. There is even some debate as to whether leaving power among fully elected representatives is "true" democracy. Jvol 05:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Rome?

If the USA is considered a democracy then so must the Roman Republic. I recommend reading "Rubicon" by Tom Holland it is a very good book, it is about the fall of the free Roman Republic. You will be shocked by the similiarity between the two republics.

Rome is most definetly a democracy, I am suprised that Rome is not considered as a democracy in this article. And as to gerrymandering, all democracy cater to the aristocrats and the nobility. Do you think it would be cheap to run for the US Senate, you would need deep pockets. Our Forefathers were all aristocrats with a large majority wealthy Virginian plantation owners. Rome had Tribunes who represented the poor and created reforms and laws. Does any one think that this article needs a disclaimer for lack information?

"In comparison, although the Roman republic elected its leaders, and passed its laws by popular assemblies, the system had been effectively gerrymandered in the interest of the rich and well-born."

Is this saying the Roman Republic was not a democracy, or simply not an effective democracy? Is gerrymandering more of a strike against a democracy than non-universal suffrage (such as in Athens)?

Perhaps Rome's democratic traits (or lack thereof) pre-Empire should be expanded into a section of their own rather than this one rather suggestive sentence. Iamo

Sounds like a good idea to me. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 06:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I'd have to read up on it - Rome is not my speciality - but I think that the Republic was never a democracy, but an oligarchy instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Romans didn't have universal suffrage either: I don't think any city state ever did, since citizenship was by descent not place of birth. (Nor do modern states for that matter: I lived in the US for 13 years and no one gave me a vote just because I was there, yet I paid taxes, was subject to laws etc. A truly universal sufferage would be If you're there, you're in) Flounderer 04:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't really going for a quantitative argument as to which was more or less democratic. The idea was more to point out that it's not exactly complete to dismiss a semidemocratic process out of hand based on one antidemocratic aspect. The article as it stood gave a rather strange picture of the Republic. But I'm really impressed with how that section has expanded since I commented on it. Cheers to the person who did so! Iamo 08:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

i completely agree the dismissal of roman democracy in one sentence as "faked" one is historically inaccurate and unjustified. gerrymandering is a potential part of all democracies (including the greek)

Rome was not a democracy. It was run by the Senate which was ruled by the rich. You had to be rich to be there, in fact, I believe the romans had a law (or code) that made it this way. Class, presitge, and/or being rich put one in the senate. It had some popular rights, but it was really an aristocracy. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

The lengthy tales currently included of specific interactions of powerful generals toward the end of the Roman Republic/beginning of Empire are entertaining and nicely written but really not a central part of the history of democracy, at least not in such detail. If we include such blow-by-blow accounts of every major politician who influenced the form of government in every republic, this article will be hundreds of pages long. A one-paragraph summary describing the demise of the Roman Republic would probably suffice here. I'm not going to unilaterally do it myself because its a somewhat radical change, but I suggest that a summary be derived and the bulk of this passage by shifted to a more appropriate page ('fall of the Roman Republic'? 'origins of the Roman Imperial dynasties'?) If possible, maybe the writer of the passage can do the move himself, to insure that it will go to a place he's comfortable with and can find. please register opinion and reasons here in support of or against this proposed move. Jvol 06:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Democracy among indiginous peoples

I found it strange that this page doesn't mention the Iroquois Confederacy as possibly the first modern democracy. The Iroquois are supposed to have a constitution that is about 900 years old and this may even have been a significant inspiration for the constitution of the United States. I think that the origin of direct democracy lies in the old forms of tribal organisation extending into prehistory. Let me know what you think, and I can make some changes to the page. --Scipantheist 18:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Iroquois Confederacy certainly sounds intriguing, but I admit it is an area I am ATM quite unfamiliar with. We would all certainly appreciate if you would expand the relevant articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 68.40.103.126

User 68.40.103.126 made extensive edits to the "20th century" section, including some obvious and flagrant PoV about American socialists being "duped" or somesuch. I've reverted to the previous version. This user also has been insisting upon putting PoV into the article on the LSAT, but declined to participate, so far, in the discussion. Keep an eye on this article, after I fixed his PoV additions on the LSAT article he went back and added more and actually deleted existing, factual, cited, sourced information.

Athenian democracy in decline

I removed the sentence about Athenian democracy being in decline in the 4th century. This turns up in handbooks but I don't think it's much believed any more. There's not much to support it. (It may be true that there were fewer democratic cities in the Aegean once the Athenian empire was no longer there to prop them up: if that is what is meant maybe it should be explicitly stated.) Most of what is known about Athenian democracy is from the 4th century and then is supposed back into the 5th where the evidence is very much slimmer. Golden Ages and Declines are often just figments and need to be closely questioned before being let into any encyclopedia. The decline is when the Macedonians shut down the democracy in 322BC.

See Mogens Hansen, Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Flounderer 04:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can replace the decline sentence with the above statement and reference, go ahead. I'd still leave the note that that it was used to believed it was in decline. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking I 'll make something a bit like the notes below for the main democracy page and then come back to this one.

There are some big changes in the democracy between the two centuries, in response to the catastrophe of the Peloponnesian war. The most crucial thing was a shifting of responsibilities from the assembly to the courts, that is from the general citizen body to smaller units which had more time for deliberation and no one under 30 in them: for instance in the 5th the assembly both legislated and issued executive decrees — there was in effect no difference between the two. In the 4th they transferred legislation to the nomothetai, the "lawmakers", who were the jurors under another name. Similar, though earlier, is the shift from ostracism to graphe paranomon. Sometimes people talk about radical 5th century democracy versus moderate 4th century, though it's only in the 4th century that they started paying for assembly attendance. Flounderer 06:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon deletion and my revert

Dear anon (User:193.1.100.8), you wrote: Information isn't biased, but is very economical for a history article, and is also a bit cold war specific. I could understand why you would like to move the information to somewhere else, but simply deleting it because it's in a somewhat different style then the rest of the article is not a good reason for it. Maybe the entire article needs more economical touch and sections other then the cold war one needs to be expanded?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've sperarated out the paragraphs into a seperate section. This stuff talks about Ronald Regan and the fall of communism. It's really suspicious. It sounds like some kind of miltonian rant about the superiority of capitalism or something. In any case, it's not very suited to a history article.

POV/Bias?

"World War II was ultimately a victory for Democracy in Western Europe, allowing for representative governments in the former fascist nations that reflected the general will of their citizens. However, Eastern Europe fell under the oppression of Soviet totalitarianism.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in Russia and Eastern Europe, new democracies were instituted in these nations, with free elections and representative governments. Having suffered under the weight of oppressive and unworkable socialistic systems, most of these nations embraced democracy. However, many Post-Soviet states, paticularly in central Asia, became Authoritarian dictatorships"

Doesn't this part here sound a "little" biased? I mean like this "unworkable socialistic systems" stuff. Isn't that clearly showing that the author thinks that socialistic systems cannot work, when in fact this has never been proven in the history of the world (there hasn't been a single fully socialist system so far AFAIK)? I think that this part should be reworded to somewhat like:

"World War II was ultimately a victory for Democracy in Western Europe, allowing for representative governments in the former fascist nations that reflected the general will of their citizens. However, Eastern Europe fell under the Soviet totalitarianism.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in Russia and Eastern Europe, new democracies were instituted in these nations, with free elections and representative governments. [Maybe add some other kind of a sentence here?] However, many Post-Soviet states, paticularly in central Asia, became Authoritarian dictatorships"

Personally, I don't think its a good idea to have comments on the functionality of different political systems in an article about democracy (socialism can be democratic as well, by the way). Does anyone agree (I don't want to rush into an article and simply change things...)? --85.49.224.50 01:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point that many people seem to confuse political system with economic system. I'd recommend adding single party and communist adjectives to the 'Soviet totalitarianism'. This is a tricky matter, however - you may want to register and ask User:172 who may have some valuable input on this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The waves of democracy section appears to have been hijacked wayback by someone lauding the virtues of the capitalist system and the "failure" that was communism. I've attempted to edit it out, but was told that I shouldn't, even though the section has no business in this article. The stuff in "waves of democracy" therefore, could do with some unbiasing. The "econnomics of democracy" section should be dropped altogether. -- 213.94.181.89

I have done precisely that (and this edit was long overdue). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There has never been a fully socialistic system? What was the Soviet Union? What was Communist China? What was India post-independence?

-None of those were fully socialistic, despite serious efforts by key individuals and institutions. None ever achieved unity or freedom from corruption (not even close!) necessary to institute any functioning socialism, settling in USSR, etc for mere political control - and even that came at expense of millions of lives, freedom of speech. Regardless of observers's opinion of the merits or practicality of socialism, it must be acknowledged that these nations were never fully socialistic, though some socialist forms were more or less adopted. My apologies that this is off-topic and I'll undrstand if it gets wiped, but it was brought up and seemed worthwhile to address. Jvol 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are those who debate socialism can never be democratic and others who contend capitalism can never be democratic. Also the thing about capitalism being "contained" by democracy is highly POV in my opinion, I'm revising it.

The powerful use the economic system -any economic system- to accumulate more wealth and exert power, and the masses try to use political forms to check the power of wealthy individuals (arguably one of the main reasons for government). The Bill of Rights, antitrust legislation, minimum wage are all aimed at this. In this sense, capitalism -or at least those in control of it- *is* in fact contained somewhat by democracy (with of course varying degrees of success). Jvol 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Don't confuse political system with economic system. 2. There are no ideal types in reality.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it wasnt WW2 what ultimately turned most countries into democracy, if we recall during the 75's, all of latin america was one huge right-wing dictatorship that was friendly towards america (who would rather have friendly brutal dictatorships as oposed to democraticly elected left-wing goverments, such as what happened in Chile, but hey!, it was the middle of the cold war back then, the soviets werent doing any better). I'd say democracy pretty much got popularized around the early 90s more than anything else. Plus when the Soviet Block fell, most countries wich depended from the Soviet Union faced deeply harsh economical problems, i dont think any ex-varsovian pact country went happily to the capitalism train after years of having a socialist system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.167.137 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-12 (UTC)

Synoecism

Why is this, Synoecism NOT linked in this article? Where Pmanderson is your references that says Synoecism has nothing to do with Democracy and why did you delete it off both this article and Athenian democracy? Please explain and reference why you revert, I would like to learn here. Have I missed something in my reading of material. Are you in the possession of material I am not for I find your reasoning strange to say the least.WHEELER 01:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

v. OCD s. synoecism, Attica, Eleusis. Attica was unified before Solon, to say nothing of Cleisthenes or Ephialtes, who are here relevant. What reference has led you to this confusion? Septentrionalis 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Expansion request

• Discuss recent democratic reforms in various countries, such as Jordan, China (on the local level), and Saudi Arabia.
• Discuss recent history of situations like those in Egypt, Russia, and Zimbabwe, where democratic institutions are in flux.

Ancient India Democracy

This theory of Ancient Indian Democracy is not peer reviewed and not accepted by the majority of historians, should not be included as fact. It should be a footnote if anything at all. All I have seen is one article from one professor at an obscure school in Nippising, Ontario, Canada. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.125.238 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-26 (UTC)

Questionable History re: India/Sumeria Substantiate or Drop

The references to democracy beginnning in Sumeria and/or India are very dubious and should be struck from this article unless someone can provide real documentation. It sounds like someone here is trying to be a press agent for India. The scholarship I have seen suggests that no real democracy existed before Athens where, indeed, they coined the term. While people may have lived together tribally throughout the world without a great deal of hierarchy, this should be addressed in the article generically and not attributed to India or Sumeria.

If anyone has real scholarship to support the references to Sumeria dn India please provide. Otherwise, the material should be struck. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.42.13 (talk • contribs) July 17, 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree DavidMarciano 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, although I will note that democracy on the low-scale (decision making by voting in villages and such) likely existed before Athens. Still, we should not a significant difference between voting in a village and running a (city)-state in that way.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I too agree. We should think from a global perspective and do not think that everything we see in the modern world originated only in particular regions of the world which are currently more developed from regions of Asia and Africa. --Bhadani 03:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If democratic forms likely existed among pre-city tribes, and no true democracies existed before the 20th century (if in fact they exist yet) then is it even fruitful to talk about democracy "beginning" anywhere in particular? In't it really more of a continuum, gradually evolving? maybe we should just talk about places where its been cited, and to what degree its been substantiated, and what form it took, rather than present it as an argument for who has the "democracy crown".Jvol 05:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've begun process of substantiation of Sumer section, tho it definitely needs more help. Theres apparently scholarly work on the subject of Sumerian Democracy and its decline, but I've been unable to find more than a title online: 'The Birth of Kingship: from Democracy to Monarchy in Sumer', by Jacob Klein. Any help there would be good. incidentally, the greek 'demos' is likely descended from the Sumerian 'dumu'. Also, there's a wikipedia article on Raul S. Manglapus, but I haven't been able to get it to link. apparently a redirect will have to be created, which I haven't mastered yet. help there too would be appreciated. Jvol 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first users. The sections regarding Mesopotamia and India according to the rules of wikipedia can’t possibly stay at their present state. A politician is used to verify that Mesopotamia was a democracy?! Wikipedia clearly requires that the views included in its articles present commonly held views by scholars. The citations used do not represent what the consensus of historians accepts. The citations do not even present any proof of what they imply. An internet site saying that Sumerians might or might not have had democracies isn’t of much use. I too think the sections should be cut from the article until proper citations are found.Talsal 05:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Democracy among Animals

I have attempted multiple times to include the following paraphraph, but somebody repeated kept taking it down, calling it "vandalism". Perhaps uncited or arguably under the wrong sub-topic, but it is not vandalism. --Tablizer 06:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC):

Recent research has suggested that mammals such as herds of deer use a form of democracy to determine timing and direction of navigation, such as when to seek water and which river to head towards. Each herd member will begin to face their individual preference. When enough of the deer have selected an indicative stance, the herd then heads in the direction of the most individuals. This voting appears to not even be override-able by the dominate males of the herd. [Source: NPR Radio, Citations coming...]

I'd suggest you provide citations from academic journals, radio is not the most reliable of sources for such a controversial insert.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

But being timely is more important than being certain in my opinion, as long as a note indicates this. It is what makes wikipedia better than Britanica. --Tablizer 05:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, see WP:V. But don't despair - you can write an entire article on that subject for Wikinews, our sister news-centered project.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

related links: Evolution of democracy began before speech: www.ainfos.ca/03/jan/ainfos00233.html (I couldn't hyperlink because root site is blocked) Text of Conradt and Roper's mathematical model atempting to compare survival value of group decision-making in animals: http://www.aseanbiodiversity.info/Abstract/51000203.pdf Jvol 13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Democracy

democracy has a long section on the history of democracy. Why have two articles? Will you visit and suggest which parts might help this article if merged, (if any)? Perhaps the section on Anarchist Democracy? Raggz 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, although there is a good amount of info on the Democracy page, this article goes more in depth into the evolution on western democracies and also examines democracy in other cultures. rakkar 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman Republic too long

I think the Roman Republic section of this article is too long. It's disproportionate to the topic it describes. More could be said by less. It's also disproportionate to the other Origins places. Hires an editor 02:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A split into democracy in the Roman Republic or similar article might be considered in this case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  09:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section on Rome is too long because it includes a historical facts that, although they are a part of Roman history, they do not concern the history of democracy. For example, the repraisals against Julius Caesar's assassins, or the power struggles that followed.I propose that they be condensed into very brief overviews and only be included to demonstrate how democratic principles evolved. The article we have in place now, could be made into the recommended article Democracy in the Roman Republic or perhaps Roman Democracy as it deals with democracy after the republic feel. rakkar 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am editing down the section in question, and the original text has been moved to Democracy in Ancient Rome. rakkar 02:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

racist comments on this page

Looks like some racist do still exist among the western historians for whom a reference from greek text is authentic but froma hindu one not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.225.122 (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC) There is nothing racist about applying scholarly standards to a wikipedia article. Unfortunately a certain school of Hindu nationalists are attempting to rewrite Indian history in a ethno- or religion-centric way that is inimical not only to objective scholarship but to Indian history more generally and other ethnic and religious groups in India. Crying racism is a technique of this not so nice group. In India many regard them as no better than thugs, physically and intellectually. History shows that when one sees nationalism of this sort rearing its head, it is best to confront it straight on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.0.150 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

About the origins of democracy!

I am afraid the article about the History of Democracy is messed up (please I mean no offense) and it does not follow the mainstream positions of leading scientists etc etc!

Before I say anything, it is important that people must understand what we define with the world democracy! Democracy is a political system where all members of a society take equally active part in to the governing their own society. It is very simple but at same time very confusing since the definitions for democracy do not clarify how the people actively participate and share power. That's why there are different kinds of democracy such as representative democracy, direct democracy etc etc... But what does not belong in the democracy are the following: republic, tribalism, collectivism, etc etc A republic is not a democracy! Tribalism is not a democracy! Collectivism is not a democracy! The same applies for the organization of institutions or companies i.e. a company/church cannot be called democratic it makes no sense.

The entries about Sumeria and India are at best ambiguous if not suspicious. The references 1-3 are not trustworthy, as for 4 i don't know it. Why the following entries exist in the democracy page, i cannot imagine:

• Panchayati Raj : from the definition "literally means assembly (yat) of five (panch) wise and respected elders chosen and accepted by the village community." Now, that is called tribalism!
• Sangha : that is related the the monastic communities/assemblies, that is not a political system.
• Gana : and for Gana (with all these ambiguous evidence) at the very best it belongs in the republic page, not in the democracy page!

Now if people want non-Greek origins of democracy then they should cite proper researchers such as Martin Bernal, who is a well known scholar. In his books Black Athena he claims that democracy was imported from Africa and/or Phoenician cities, from where Greeks import (as we know) other things such as the alphabet, solar clock, the concept of city state, columns (for their temples) etc etc... It is true that Greeks were influenced by the Middle East and Africa but there are not enough evidence to support the claims that Greeks also imported democracy or that there was a democracy in the Middle East or Africa in the first place!

Speaking of facts and evidence: Athens was not the first democracy in Greece despite what most people know, it was Sparta[1,2,7]. Sparta in 600BC was already a democratic city, 100 years ahead of Athens (even though later on turned into an oligarchy), but Athens is the city we remember. In effect, democracy was born in Sparta and shined in Athens[1,2,7]!

Republic of Rome? why does it belong in the origins of the democracy? It was a republic and that is why we call it Republic of Rome, not Democracy of Rome! Republic means that it was not a monarchy. In Rome the main power body before Rome becomes an Empire was the senate and if you wanted to be member of it you had to have a considerable amount of money and land, this clearly makes the political system of Rome non-democratic! However, many customs and laws that had a democratic character and were developed during the time of the Republic of Rome and which later formed the basis of many democracies of today. The section "Republic of Rome" if stays in the origins then must clearly stated that was not a democracy but a republic with some democratic "flavors"!

Please note the following as well:

• Before the establishment of the republic in Rome, the people of Rome send a group of wise men to Athens to study the laws set by Solon[3]. These democratic flavors in the Republic of Rome were influenced by Solon.

My suggestions before changes!

• Remove Sumerian and Indian entrances. If we want to keep non-Greek origin theories in this page then we will have to create a different topic with proper references and with the title "Alternative Theories of the origins of Democracy"
• Small corrections concerning Sparta and Athens about which was the first democracy.
• if we do not move the "Republic of Rome" out of the Origins even though ancient Rome was never a democracy, we should at least be more precise and brief about the history and its contributions to democracy.
• Local institutions part needs be shorter (only the most influential in history must be kept). e.g. "The Pope was elected by a college of cardinals." How this entry is related to democracy? The cardinals voted for the Pope not all the Christians!

Finally but not least, before people start shooting me for my sharp criticism i want to say that there are series of books by well known scholars studying the reasons as to why democracy was born in Greece and not somewhere else such as India, China, etc etc. I will briefly state the main reasons here:

• Poor land and small population: The greek landscape was and is full with hills and mountains making difficult to farm the land and thus making difficult for aristocracy to maintain its power. On the other hand Africa, Middle East, India, China were blessed with big valleys and rivers making aristocracy strong and thus developing strong monarchies! During the golden age of Athens, its population was about 300,000 and in order not to starve (the soil of Attic was not enough), Athens had to import constantly wheat from Egypt and from its colonies from the north of Greece and Black Sea[3]. This dependence in importing wheat played a crucial role in the Peloponnesian War.

• Trade and Strong Middle Class: The Greeks were scattered into small city states like "frogs around a pool" (as Plato said). The easiest and a lot of times the only way to travel was via sea. Sea trade was bringing money creating a strong middle class able to challenge the (the weak) aristocracy (which was rooted to the land); and with slaves doing most of the work, the citizens of Athens had a lot of time to waste in politics! A combination of factors that has not been observed anywhere else.

Similar arguments are made in ref [6] about the emergence of the european civilization and re-emergence of democracy later, i.e. backward land, small population (in 1000AD europe had 5million when china had 50millions), development of the ocean trade, etc etc...

References

1. Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC - 1993 AD (ed, 1992) by John Dunn

2. Forrest, W.G., A History of Sparta: 950 - 192 BC, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1968.

3. The Story of Civilization, by William Durant

4. A Brief History of the Human Race, Granta Publications (2003) by Michael Cook

5. Grammaire des civilisations, Flammarion, édition Clamp, Paris (1993) by Fernand Braudel

6. A thousand years of nonlinear history by Manuel De Landa

7. Chrimes, K.M.T., Ancient Sparta: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1949

Please post comments or suggestions even is you agree or disagree. Thank you. A.Cython (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll have more to say about this later, but I think that this article isn't about the pedantic, dictionary definition of "democracy" (aka, Mob Rule), but more about the greater concept of it. This word has evolved from meaning rule by the people to the various forms listed in the article. It might make more sense to make this point at the beginning of the article. And also to emphasize that these other items are forms of democracy, rather than democracy itself. Hires an editor (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A. Cython makes valid points, but there is no one agreed upon definition of democracy; there are hundreds of competing definitions, so we certainly cannot limit ourselves to only one of many narrow definitions. That said, we should also try not to be too broad in scope (at some point IIRC this page had a subsection on democracy among animals... quite ridiculous, sigh).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am afraid I do not have the time to actively contribute in this article, because I am contributing to another article, maybe later... But I would add some comments:

• Even though there is no agreed definition for democracy at least we do know what it is not. So if scholars say republic they mean republic and not democracy.
• I understand this the democratic spread around the world and the people in these places where only recently democracy arrived they see it as something alien, something imported from outside. And for the stability in these new democracies the local people are looking in their past to find something similar to democracy, a cultural link. I applaud this, but let us not sacrifice history for political stability or any other reason! Recently I read an interesting article (can be found here) at Time magazine about the russian democracy, the following paragraphs indirectly reflect the above point:

This raises an old question: Do Russians really want to be free? Russians are, after all, the people who actually begged Ivan the Terrible to return to rule them after he threatened to abdicate. As Radischev put it, Russians "come to love their bonds."

These bonds — and their modern equivalent, Putin's paper-thin democracy — are increasingly seen as not only tolerable but also intrinsically, uniquely, gloriously Russian.

Among her (Catherine II) many quarrels was his account of Novgorod's sacking by Ivan the Terrible. Radischev thought it a crime against humanity; Catherine II saw only a firm ruler consolidating power. When I visited Great Novgorod (its honorific was restored in 1998), I found a city that is still squabbling about its lesson for Russia. Alone among Slavic city-states, it was never conquered by the Mongols — the ancient proverb "Who can stand against the gods and Great Novgorod?" gives a sense of its military power. But it was also a remarkably progressive city, a republic on the Roman model. All its official business was done in a public senate called the vyeche, where the 300 Golden Belts — the city's gentry — would listen to and vote on the complaints of the people. When Ivan the Terrible's grandfather, Ivan the Great, finally conquered the city in 1471 — in a sign of just how important, and dangerous, the freedoms of Novgorod's citizens were — he confiscated the city's charter and took the bell that called the vyeche to session with him back to Moscow. Novgorod was great no more.

A.Cython (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing the two paragraphs about origins of Democracy

I am afraid I am going to remove the two paragraphs about the origins of Democracy.

The claims that democracy existed at that time is misleading and not supported by the references.

You can read the above section for most of my objections but also in the last three months I was trying to find proper references to support these claims, but I have failed.

For example in the reference http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/HISTDEM/INDIADEM.HTM#6

they misuse their references see here: [1]

Oligarchies, aristocracies, democracies have been labeled as republics. Thus Sparta, Athence, Rome, medieval Venice, United Netherlands, Poland have been described as republics, though none of them possessed the full democratic character, which we are at present inclined as the most distinguishable feature of a republic.

I am sorry that is plainly wrong. Rome is a republic not a democracy, the direct democracy of Athens is considered to had the full democratic character and it cannot equated with any other republic! Please check the sources I cite in the previous post.

With the same logic a man is a woman since they are both human, it is simple!

This article is about democracy, not a general discussion about political systems where we are free to coarse grain the details.

Here the details are important. A.Cython (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert -- We should change the concept here, rather than delete information. Democracy is not defined by ourselves, but by those who ruled, who considered themselves to be citizens. If we use the definition of citizens to determine what a democracy is, then the United States is still not a democracy, since all who live in the US cannot vote, or fully participate, since there are many legal and illegal residents within the borders of that country. Democracy has been a gradually expanding concept over the course of 3 millennia, and that is part of its history. Hires an editor (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I did not delete this because it is my opinion, and i did initiated a discussion some time ago, it is just above, please read it! On the contrary, the current paragraphs are not supported by references i.e. either the references are dubious or twisted! Please, read my section above. Also, my reasoning is not by personal research but rather highly recognized scholars. Finally, democracy has a definition, which is not defined by ourselves, it would be constantly POV, please read Aristotle and The Democracy Sourcebook MIT Press (2003), (if you want more sources I would be very glad to provide them)A.Cython (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact already people have complained over the years about this look here on 2006 and here on 2007

and despite the objections after two years there are no reliable sources to support the text. If you do have any reliable sources, i beg you to tell me them, because I was looking around and I found none. A.Cython (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember our policy is WP:V. If some scholars claim those societies were democractic, their views should be presented. If you have citations for those who disagree with that, we can add that and note that there is no consensus among scholars on that; however just removing the paragraphs is not the good way to deal with this issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok let us check the references one by one of the current disputed paragraphs:

1) http://www.royalty.nu/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sumer.html

Please tell me how this personal site can be trustworthy?

Trustworthy isn't the standard. However, checking out the sources that this page's author has listed, you will find a book called History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History by Samuel Noah Kramer. Going to Amazon.com, and searching the book for the term "democracy" yields a result on page 30: the discussion of the process is very similar to the US constitutional system. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Trustworthy is the standard? In WP it says otherwise WP:RS. Also, please read [2] and note the following sentence

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics.

From amazon I can only read the following: page 30

"... separated from its original seed by thousands of miles and years. Take, for example, the way of life known as democracy and its fundamental institution, the political assembly. ..."

page 34

.. realized until 1943, when Thorkild Jacobsen, of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, published a study on Primitive Democracy. Since then it was ..."

"Primitive Democracy", which is extremely specialized term and therefore if mentioned should be along the lines of the pre-historic article from Britannica. From this we cannot make such big claims, unless someone has this book understand under what context the word democracy is used.A.Cython (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

2) Jacob Klein. The Birth of Kingship: from Democracy to Monarchy in Sumer

This is an article from Biblical Archeology magazine that I do not have access (If anyone has please bring it forth), but honesty how is Biblical is related to a political systems?

You're attacking this source by using a non-sequitor. Just because it has Biblical in its title does not make it invalid. We see by checking the source, that it is intended to be scholarly, yet general and non-sectarian. To answer the question, we must take into account that as their goal is archeology, that they are historians seeking the truth about another time and place, and seeking to explain that world in all of its detail. This would include political systems. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I had hard time to verify if this article existed. The title does not make invalid as such (even though it states Birth of Kingship not Birth of Democracy), but the fact it is published in a not relevant journal and that the results/claims are not recognized by the scientific community.A.Cython (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

3) http://www.geocities.com/garyweb65/EDI-II.html

It stated that there is somewhere that someone mentions that there some people who voted if they wanted to go to war, but later it dismisses it as anecdotal.

This is explained in #1 above. Perhaps the 'anecdotal' wording could be changed instead? Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again this from a personal website. Not a reliable source A.Cython (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

4) This is from a unknown university, from unknown person making a big claim, that most its work is summarized in the following quote from that site

a last stronghold, a stubborn survival, of ideas rooted in earlier ages

meaning that from the going from small to big societies tribalism & mob rule give up to monarchy. they over using the word democracy

this item is too unclear for comment. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely my point this web page is too unclear to be used as a reliable source.

5)This text is from Britannica and it says nowhere that Vali is considered the first republic == first democracy!

Vesali city of ancient India, north of Patna, northwestern Bihar state, on the Gandak River. In antiquity Vaisali was the capital of the Licchavi republic and was closely associated with the early histories of both Buddhism and Jainism. Roads connected it with Rajagrha to the south and Kapilavastu and Sravasti to the north. Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, was born in Vaisali and spent much time there. The Buddha also visited the city on many occasions. Its several important monasteries and shrines were described by the Chinese pilgrim Fa-hsien in the 5th century AD. After the death of the Buddha (c. 483 BC) the second great council of Buddhists was held at Vaisali to provide rules of conduct. According to tradition, the city in early times was surrounded by three walls with gates and watchtowers. The site today is marked by two groups of mounds and has been partly excavated by archaeologists. The earliest occupation of the site is associated with black-and-red pottery of probably pre-Buddhist age; it was followed by the northern black polished ware of early Buddhist times. Vaisali is on the site of a village now known as Basarh.

And just to be sure we are talking the same language here is what Britannica also says about democracy!

It starts with Ancient Greece! (no single word about India or Mesopotamia), but it says something about pre-historic democracy!

Although it is tempting to assume that democracy was created in one particular place and time—most often identified as Greece about the year 500 BC—evidence suggests that democratic government, in a broad sense, existed in several areas of the world well before the turn of the 5th century.

It is plausible to assume that democracy in one form or another arises naturally in any well-bounded group, such as a tribe, if the group is sufficiently independent of control by outsiders to permit members to run their own affairs and if a substantial number of members, such as tribal elders, consider themselves about equally qualified to participate in decisions about matters of concern to the group as a whole. This assumption has been supported by studies of nonliterate tribal societies, which suggest that democratic government existed among many tribal groups during the thousands of years when human beings survived by hunting and gathering. To these early humans, democracy, such as it was practiced, might well have seemed the most “natural” political system.

When the lengthy period of hunting and gathering came to an end and humans began to settle in fixed communities, primarily for agriculture and trade, the conditions that favour popular participation in government seem to have become rare. Greater inequalities in wealth and military power between communities, together with a marked increase in the typical community's size and scale, encouraged the spread of hierarchical and authoritarian forms of social organization. As a result, popular governments among settled peoples vanished, to be replaced for thousands of years by governments based on monarchy, despotism, aristocracy, or oligarchy, each of which came to be seen—at least among the dominant members of these societies—as the most natural form of government.

Now as Hires an editor said on 13:43, 22 February 2008

...but I think that this article isn't about the pedantic, dictionary definition of "democracy" (aka, Mob Rule), but more about the greater concept of it.

so I ask: are we going to keep these Mob Rule in the article of democracy? I am just wondering!

not sure what you're saying. Britannica is not the ultimate authority here, cited, verifiable sources are. This article is about the history of democracy. The item quoted above would be well placed in the article as it demonstrates that democracy appears to be a 'natural form of government', yet it wasn't always suited to the societal needs of those times, and that it was often a first form of government, to be replaced by something else. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Britannica says "... in a broad sense, existed in several areas of the world well before the turn of the 5th century."

But then skips everything and goes to Classical Greece.

"Britannica is not the ultimate authority here", then check Columbia and Encarta! They do not even mention this! Check the scholars who are experts in their field.

However, how "broad" can we be? We can note this as an alternative theories about the origin of democracy along the lines of Black Athena!A.Cython (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

6) http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/HISTDEM/INDIADEM.HTM

Again this is from someone i.e. personal page from unknown university. But what is more interesting is the following reference he is using: http://books.google.com/books?id=Gb3Z2UovOjkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22State+and+Government%22+Altekar&ei=zDskSIXeD4GuywS3hITHDQ&client=firefox-a&sig=n6XHzrFbtt5MaTcgHl2vyKaVYMo#PPA112,M1

Oligarchies, aristocracies, democracies have been labeled as republics. Thus Sparta, Athence, Rome, medieval Venice, United Netherlands, Poland have been described as republics, though none of them possessed the full democratic character, which we are at present inclined as the most distinguishable feature of a republic.

the book puts Oligarchies, aristocracies, democracies in the definition of republic and the author of the web-page says... well the societies in India are republics and democracy is a republic therefore anything in India that can be classified as republic can be named democracy as well!

I mean come on! This is false logic. I can claim anything if we accept this e.g. in the article of vegetables we should write about the modern vegetables, such as Ferrari, because both can be bought with money.

This is a clear misuse of references!

It is certainly not a misuse of references. If a published, respected author makes the claim, and it's verifiable, no reason it can't be put in. Besides, just because a university is small, or you haven't heard of it, does not mean that its scholarship is bad, unusable, or unworkable.

As for the logic of the claims, it's beginning to seem that you have an ideological/historical ax to grind, since the author claims that Greece isn't the beginning of democracy, or at the very least not the only beginning. The author says that Indian democracy is similar in many ways to Greek democracy, in that only a certain class of people were allowed to participate in a democratic manner. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He is not using the definitions properly, please check my comments below.A.Cython (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

7) I do not have the book, but from the title (History of Buddhism in India!) it is unrelated with the subject

a review of the book can be found here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/613140?seq=2 P. T. Denwood Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 36, No. 1 (1973), pp. 165-166

and guess what!? from the review:

But there are dangers using him as a historical source...

and the review concludes:

The truth is that his material is rarely verifiable and as a lot of it is obviously legendary it is often impossible to draw the line between fact and fiction.

So why WP use this? Don't we want high quality references?

So strike the reference. If you're judging a book by its title, you are making a faulty generalization, a.k.a., judging a book by its cover. We could just as well determine that reviewer is faulty, rather than the material being reviewed. If the History of Buddhism in India has some relevant section on democracy, then why not put it in? Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

First the book's subject is about religion and it is irrelevant with democracy. Also an expert on the field warns us not to use it as historical reference. again WP:RSA.Cython (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

8) Gopala was the first independent Buddhist king of Bengal and came to power in 750 CE in Gauda by democratic election as per evidence furnished by Taranatha.

So the people said ok we will have democratic vote, this is our king, God save the king, he is our monarch, long live the kingdom! Now, where is democracy after these democratic elections? One governs many???? that is not democracy! No matter how open minded someone can be, this is not democracy. I really want to see books and other reliable sources to support these claims!

If you vote for your king, why isn't that democracy? No one votes directly for the Prime Minister in England, yet England is a democracy, and it has a queen that no one voted for! Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Vote is not a necessary condition for having a democracy. In fact in ancient Athens were trying to avoid it, because they thought that voting only favors the rich. Now about UK

Britain has Parliamentary democracy and Constitutional monarchy

• Parliamentary democracy: means that all UK citizens above a certain age have equal access to become members of Parliament, where the main power is concentrated and not at the Queen/King.
• Constitutional Monarchy: means that the Queen/King is there to insure the stability of the political system, other than that her/his powers are limited! A.Cython (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Now let us see what leading scholars say about it:

1. Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC - 1993 AD (ed, 1992) by John Dunn

John Dunn is considered the top figure in political sciences focusing on Democracy, and he is located in Cambridge. If you do have this book please read the first pages he claims the following

Who is it that considers him this? Are you speaking of John Montfort Dunn? Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

yep... link fixedA.Cython (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Democracy is born in Greece (note the title of the book 508BC == Cleisthenes first reforms in Athens)
• He mentions the only alternative respectable theory (but immediately dismiss it as he adds that it remains only a theory) about the origins of democracy is the work of Martin Bernal, who is a well known scholar, with his books Black Athena.
• no democracy in India
• no democracy in Mesopotamia, except maybe of Martin Bernal.

Other sources that democracy was born in greece

Just because an eminent scholar fails to mention some kind of information, does not mean that the information does not exist, is invalid, or cannot be true. He may have good, solid reasons for omitting information, but people of education and good conscience can disagree. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

First it is not just one eminent scholar so says that. And he starts from Athens, but briefly mentions about Sparta, if that is what you want to say? Also how he is omitting information with statements like that the history of democracy started in Greece? Finally, you have the every right to have your own opinion. But WP is not a place for opinions. WP:NPOVA.Cython (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

2. The Story of Civilization, by William Durant

3. A Brief History of the Human Race, Granta Publications (2003) by Michael Cook

4. Grammaire des civilisations, Flammarion, édition Clamp, Paris (1993) by Fernand Braudel

ok... I understand that removing two paragraphs was a little too much but I am not acting under POV or as a vandal. People complained for two years, I posted comments at the end of February see here, I could not find any reliable sources, so someone had to make a change. Now if I am wrong and there are proper sources then we should cite these proper sources and not these unreliable sources! The books that I am citing are books from top class authors and that everyone can check them at the libraries. Unfortunately I do not have them right in front of me to give you the exact pages :( sigh but I have read them and do claim the above that I said.

Finally, please note this is an article about democracy NOT about republic, which means we cannot overextend our definitions of what a democracy is! A.Cython (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If we review democracy, varieties of democracy, and other within WP sources, just as a basic point of reference, we see that some form of rule by majority exists in the definition. We also see that democracy is a limited term, or that no one definition exists. Republics can be considered representative democracies, for example, according to the definition of republic. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is POV. Democracy is what it is and it and has a definition, please read the definitions below and the example of the British form of government, above.A.Cython (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Cython makes valid points. From a quick look at my encyclopedias I found too that there are no references to Mesopotamia and India. We should check the references cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.118.250 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

More reliable sources:

• Encarta Encyclopedia: article, again they start with Greece and Rome not a single word about India and Mesopotamia

omission does not imply that something doesn't exist!

WP is about writing things that exist from reliable sources.A.Cython (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Columbia Encyclopedia: here , again they start with Greece not a single word about India and Mesopotamia

See above Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• What about the people who teach at the top universities in the world:

Marshall Berman: (Distinguished Professor of Political Science at City College of New York and CCNY Graduate Center) [see here http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/mar_apr07/forum.php]

The Greek chorus was understood to represent the body of citizens, in a polis that was turning itself into the world’s first democracy.

Even someone like this can be mistaken, or flat out wrong. This is evidenced in the works cited above.

So all the scholars from top universities that I have presented so far are wrong according to your point of view? A.Cython (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• MIT online courses about the History of Political Sciences it starts with Plato (big surprise?)

Same as above.

• Other teaching material from MIT web-site pdf

• Other teaching material from MIT web-site pdf

Although not necessarily democratic by modern standards, Solon’s reforms are frequently considered democratic in the context of the time period in which he was politically active because they were the first motions towards what would later become the basis for democracy.

Prior to Solon, power had generally been centralized in one man, or within a small aristocratic class.

• From Oxford university! http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/content/164

To study the Greek and Roman world is to study one of the greatest civilizations that has existed. The world’s first democracy - the conquests of Alexander the Great - the dazzling achievements of the Roman empire, are only some of its highlights.

Another way to check about how many scholars consider the India as the democratic in antiquity you check it with the following way, google seach the following:

"first democracy" india site:links.jstor.org

all the links you will find, are about modern age, i.e. with Gandhi or the first democracy will be referred to America as it was the first modern democracy! No ancient India!

feel free to compare it

"first democracy" athens site:links.jstor.org

or

"first democracy" greece site:links.jstor.org

you will find much more relevant links! Honestly, what else does someone need to do for something so obvious? The references presented justify my actions (i.e. deleting the two paragraphs) and they are overwhelming!

Unless, of course you say that Britannica, Encarta, Columbia encyclopedias, top scholars in history and political sciences, top universities at their lecture notes, are instruments of Greek propaganda! I would feel honored, if that is true!

They just don't know any better. It's the same problem as Europeans had prior to Columbus: they don't know about North and South America, so they must not exist. Scholarship is sometimes an echo chamber, where people simply repeat what other people say, without doing any of their own research. Much of the scholarship relating to first democracies comes out of the Enlightenment, which glorified the Greeks. European scholars of the Ancien Regime didn't know a whole lot about India, and weren't schooled in the languages of India, so how could they have done any research? I'm sure the same is true about many modern European and American scholars as well. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comments on that belowA.Cython (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And no there is no conflict between sources, because there are no reliable sources that claim democracy existed in ancient India or Mesopotamia! Just look around! A.Cython (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because the sources have no conflict doesn't mean that there isn't valid, conflicting information. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to reply to Hires an editor

If we use the definition of citizens to determine what a democracy is, then the United States is still not a democracy, since all who live in the US cannot vote, or fully participate, since there are many legal and illegal residents within the borders of that country.

I am not the one who is using definition of citizens, but all the scholars at the top level! And with your logic there is no democracy, or ever existed (therefore we should delete the whole article) since we do not count the votes of children or even infants or even dogs and cats! They are also in our societies and do not participate!

Thus you have proved my point. There are direct democracies on a small scale, other types on larger scales, and they tend to be more like republics...if we talk about a narrow definition of democracy, where all the people participate, this would be a small small article. There have always been rules about who participates in ruling, citizenship, age, sex, and other statuses. There are other ways to define democracy, and we should not be limiting ourselves or this article to only one narrow definition. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope i did not, see my comments belowA.Cython (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Democracy has been a gradually expanding concept over the course of 3 millennia, and that is part of its history.

I have presented top quality sources that say otherwise. Unless of course (look at Britannica) we count the cavemen for the greater concept of democracy! Then we should add and not remove, two new sections, i.e. Democracy of Animals (remember that humans are social animals by Aristotle, and a user mentioned that we should at such a section) and a section about Democracy of the cavemen! A.Cython (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to ridicule fallacy. You're being ridiculous here. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive me, I mean no offense. I am very serious here!A.Cython (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

another reliable reference: from BBC History written from Paul Cartledge, who is Professor of Greek History at the University of Cambridge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml

The ancient Greeks famously invented democracy.

Is he also "bluntly POV"? A.Cython (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well of course he is, he's got his specialty to think about! Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the two paragraphs about origins of Democracy, for the reasons already stated above by A.Cython, per WP:RS. See also undue_weight. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice how A.Cython (talk) contacted The Cat and the Owl for a supporting opinion and there is no history of that person contributing to this article. In fact, in viewing that person's history, he certainly has an interest in Greece. Not bad by itself, but certainly biased in favor of a Greek interpretation of "Greece First!" for democracy. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comments belowA.Cython (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Some progress, ok... here there are some more references (books) about democracy

• "First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea" By Paul Woodruff, Oxford University Press US

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZqX7dCmuKyoC

• "A Company of Citizens: What the World's First Democracy Teaches Leaders", By Brook Manville, Josiah Ober, Published 2003

Harvard Business School Press http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5JnJ_epMxgkC

• "The Greek and Roman world" By William George Hardy, Published 1962 Schenkman Civilization, Classical

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NSo8AAAAMAAJ&q=%22first+democracy%22&dq=%22first+democracy%22&ei=DKglSOytKKXEyASb3YimCg&pgis=1

• "Twenty-first Century Democracy" By Philip Resnick, Published 1997 McGill-Queen's Press MQUP

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sMEfMRYpubUC

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sMEfMRYpubUC&pg=PR1&vq=first+democracy&dq=%22first+democracy%22+subject:%22Political+Science+/+Political+ideologies+/+Democracy%22&source=gbs_search_s&sig=Smw8k8c2NsxRXX0CIdtX_dxYYac#PPA5,M1

Democracy which began in Athens...

• "Athenian Democracy" By John Thorley Published 1996 Routledge

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fK1Iz1qqBqUC&pg=PA2&dq=%22first+democracy%22+subject:%22Political+Science+/+Civics+%26+Citizenship%22&ei=f60lSMaiE5HCyQSU-4mPCw&sig=_MQZqQfjr8eEqs-R8Kpu5XUbjaY

But Athenian democracy was the first democracy

This book contains a nice chapter to dispel the confusion between democracy and republic! By David Beetham, European Consortium for Political Research Contributor David Beetham Published 1994 SAGE http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rDTe4PBYnHwC http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rDTe4PBYnHwC&pg=PA65&dq=%22first+democracy%22+subject:%22Political+Science+/+Political+ideologies+/+Democracy%22&ei=XK8lSPOMOouCyQSzoLiPCw&sig=BTJ3ab84OIXkcxeN2Dhs-ZijYVQ#PPA44,M1

• "Public Space and Democracy" By Marcel Hénaff, Tracy B. Strong

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8UNrZPF9IOsC A.Cython (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And finally, you are making a fallacious argument, proof by verbosity, which only shows that you have energy to put in a lot of sources which already prove your point, rather than verifying and possibly even accepting some other point of view. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• When I started reading the article I was really excited about it, hoping to learn something new. But quickly, I became disappointed due to the unreliable sources. So please, forgive me if I am enthusiastic about WP, but anything I do in WP, it is only for improving WP.
• I am not stating my opinion e.g. I do not believe the arguments of Black Athena, or that Sparta was democratic a century ahead of Athens. But they need to be mentioned in the article, since experts/scholars/philosophers think that this is true.
• About Sparta, the scholars studied it claim that it was because of its constitution demanding that every one (even the King) in the society to be equal. Once I write it you see why. Briefly here the reasons why it is not known
  • the oligarchic elements prevailed
  • later Sparta was overshadowed by Athens
• WP is not about me (or anyone else) accepting a different point of view. Besides, point of view, is that POV?
• WP is not a battlefield for spreading different point of views. People complained three times (including myself) over the course of two years. I have already verified (even if that needed to bring an overwhelming amount of sources) that the opinion, which states that democracy existed in ancient India or Mesopotamia, is only an opinion (POV) and not scientific knowledge. To the best of my knowledge, there are no reliable sources to support these claims. On the other hand, if you do have any reliable sources please post them and dispel my ignorance!
• I did contact non-Greek editors see here, it just happens to know that these editors are more experienced and more objective!
• Please do not accuse me for "bluntly POV" just because I am Greek and without reading my arguments!
• Your argument that the whole western civilization if euro-centric or even greco-roman-centric... yep so? It is true! If a cube is a cube then it is cube. I fail to see your point! Nevertheless, it is also true that we do know much about India or China, but we do not know yet (and here with we I mean the whole world). Until we do know i.e. there are reliable sources, we will still stick with what we do know. WP is not place to state POV or original research! And your non-euro-centric perspective is POV, unless you show reliable sources for improving this article.

Also, claiming that Professors at the top universities, experts in their field are POV... whoa... then what kind of sources should we trust? Especially when the majority of academics share this as common knowledge!

• And yes there is one fundamental principle needed for any definition of democracy (indirect, direct, representative, or what ever else) and that has been stated by Aristotle (not to mention this one of the first things someone learns in political sciences):

Freedom is the defining principle of democracy.

The underlying principle of democracy is freedom, and it is customary to say that only in democracies do men have a share in freedom, for that is what every democracy makes its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: 1) being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and 2) to be able to live as one pleases.

Most people that claim that democracy existed somewhere else, usually fail to satisfy the above principle. I have a source of a book from 1893 claiming that there was democracy in China. I wondering why experts are failing to notice it...?

• And about what you said

Thus you have proved my point. There are direct democracies on a small scale, other types on larger scales, and they tend to be more like republics...if we talk about a narrow definition of democracy, where all the people participate, this would be a small small article. There have always been rules about who participates in ruling, citizenship, age, sex, and other statuses. There are other ways to define democracy, and we should not be limiting ourselves or this article to only one narrow definition.

No that was not what I said. A book puts all these different things oligarchy, aristocracy and democracy into one definition i.e. republic and the the author names India's cities as republics, which is a little suspicious but it is ok. Then there is a personal web-page with the tile "Democracy in India" of someone somewhere that makes the statement that Indian cities were republics and according to the definition given above. Now in the WP we were citing the personal web page claiming that democracy is originated in India!? Just because they are named republics, it does not mean that they are democratic. We are misusing the references. I mentioned above if we are strict and use narrow definitions then there was never a democracy ever, not in Sparta, not in Athens or anywhere else! The definitions that I am using here are the ones used in academia, whether I like them or not.

• Please remember this is an article about democracy not republic. Sparta, Rome and Venice/Florence are only mentioned because they contributed directly or indirectly to the modern wave of democracy! According to the definitions:

• Monarchy is a from of government where power is accessed by one.
• Republic is a form of government that is anything other than monarchy.
• Oligarchy is a form of government where political power is accessed by the few.
• Aristocracy is a form of government where political power is accessed by the best/elite.
• Democracy is a political system where all have equal access to power. Again this is not my definition but it is based on Aristotle's one, and being part of the political sciences core. Note that the definition is about access not about who is holding the power or how many! Enjoy life! A.Cython (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TODO list

I said in my Feb post previously I will add the alternative theories about democracy + some more changes which I summarize here:

• pre-historic origin of democracy (the basics are written, maybe it needs a small expansion)
• Alternative theories
  • Black Athena (still not sure if it will enter)
  • Mesopotamia / India
• Sparta (the basics are written, some more references, a very brief expansion about how it worked)
  • Again despite the common knowledge, Sparta was the first democracy I have already given sources in my previous posts.
  • As Aristotle described it, Sparta is a mixture democracy, oligarchy and monarchy

so is this a democracy or not? If it's a mixture, then the item directly above the last item is contradicting the item directly below it. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the scholars it is the first society that made big steps towards a fully democratic society. In addition note that Sparta was the first city of having a constitution containing many democratic elements such as equality irrespectively of the wealth. But as I mentioned above the oligarchic elements prevailed and anything democratic left was overshadowed by Athens.A.Cython (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Many try to talk about Sparta as a democracy because it has many democratic elements in the arrangement [of its system of government]. For example, the children of rich and poor are raised and educated in the same way. So, too, adults eat and dress the same way, whether rich or poor. As for their top two offices, one is elected by the people [that is, ordinary citizens], and the people can be elected to the other. Others call Sparta an oligarchy because it has oligarchic elements also.

• Re-write the Athenian Democracy (include background story, Solon, use more in-text citations)
• Republic of Rome (now I will focus on Rome)
  • First of all this was a republic not a democracy we need to clarify this
  • I will try to make shorter and focus on the democratic elements!

For this part, don't forget the corruption of democracy that occurred as well. Hires an editor (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me... but it will take a while until I start making changes at the Roman section. The problem is that even though Rome was a Republic, most modern democracies are greatly influenced by it (and to some extent Sparta) and i am not sure how to present it. Note the Athenian influence to the modern democracies is smaller than most people think. I guess this explains why at US they have a Senate and not Areopagus! lol A.Cython (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Renaissance Italian cities like Venice need to be in a new section. Even though they are oligarchy like Rome they also played significant role towards to the awakening of democracy later in Europe.
• Verify dubious statements such as: (ok this is very interesting, but we need to rewrite in a non-POV way)

Historian Jack Weatherford asserts that Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and others, got their ideas on democracy not from any Greek or Roman influence, but from the Iroquois and other indigenous peoples of the Americas, who practiced the type of democracy found in the United States Constitution, through self-governing territories that were part of a larger whole.

If anyone has suggestions, references, comments, or anything else, which will help to improve this article, please post them!A.Cython (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny... it has been 2 years since my previous major update... well now the roman section has a brief cover of its history and some description on its political structure. I will continue polishing it over the next couple weeks, but now my focus will turn on the medieval period.A.Cython (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Source

This is not a dubious source. I read the book myself, and cited it because it is relevant. Hires an editor (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the book that you read it? Is it the book of Weatherford, J. McIver (1988)? In that case this is very interesting, I need to read it.A.Cython (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok from an academic review, the book is considered good. It brings to light many interesting things about how American Indians influenced the world. But digging a little further, i found that the argument that the whole US constitution is directly influenced by Native American is part of an academic war. I am not touching this section (yet), since I need the book to understand what it claims, and check other references.

• here is a review of the book: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3317455?seq=1

Can't access jstor.org without a paid subscription. Can't really use it as a reliable source, can we? Hires an editor (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• here is an article about the dispute: http://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqconf.htmA.Cython (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is by who? From the URL, it seems like this is from a high school teacher. If we can't use a web-based reference for proof of other claims made in the article, using this reference is also unacceptable. On the other hand, if we trust that this source is reliable, then we would also trust the other. The k12.nh.us tells us that this is a high school website, and while by itself is not unacceptable, the fact that we have no academic credentials for the author of the page, nor do we have a bibliography, nor any other references should make us doubt the reliability of this source. Hires an editor (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I take this back: there is a bibliography, which I did not see on my first review of the page. However, it's still a high school teacher of unknown academic reputation. Of course, using only the 'most respected academics in the field' is a logical fallacy that takes away from scholars who simply rank in the middle of the pack at small, unremarkable, places of higher learning. What makes this link reliable in your eyes, vis a vis the other link (http://www.royalty.nu/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sumer.html)?

You are right this is not enough. That is why I continue reading. However the reason I started digging up is that from the review I posted, it states that following thing:

Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington called on their knowledge of the American Indian tribal forms of leadership to develop the model that became the US form of government.

Perfect this is very exciting, they were influenced, to what degree I do not yet, but it very far from we have in WP

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and others, got their ideas on democracy not from any Greek or Roman influence, but from the Iroquois and other indigenous peoples of the Americas, who practiced the type of democracy found in the United States Constitution, through self-governing territories that were part of a larger whole.

At the moment I am checking the references of that site and not only they exist but they do show that there is an ongoing academic war over this issue! Here are some source that I am currently trying to read:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=LNKNhY0MX8UC
• http://edt.missouri.edu/Winter2006/Dissertation/KemperK-050506-D4560/research.pdf

The last link is a "Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia". Here, is what he notes about the subject!

Bruce Johansen argues, for example, that the Iroquois had a democratic form of government that influenced the framers of the United States, though his theory has received marked scholarly criticism.

I do not see anywhere, as a fact that the framers of the US complete rejected the Greco-Roman influence and completely embraced the Native Americans! The truth must be somewhere in the middle, but let read these sources first! A.Cython (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One more interesting thing, but not very reliable... this is link from amazon about this book (Debating Democracy: Native American Legacy of Freedom). And here is what encountered when I was reading its review in order to get an idea:

The book documents roughly 30 years of work between the two men in their efforts to make historical fact the contributions that the Iroquois Confederacy made to the founding of the U.S. Constitution. The authors make a simple point: That the Iroquois played a role as important to the founding of the Constitution as did the Greeks, Romans, the Magna Carta or the Swiss Cantons. Mann writes an epilogue "that examines Eurocentric assumptions of racial, cultural, and intellectual superiority that continue to govern education and scholarship, affecting the ability of non-Europeans to participate fully in our society."

Now that sounds less POV and at the same time very interesting/exciting!A.Cython (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any contention that the framers rejected Greco-Roman influence, it's that they didn't need it so much, nor was there any other contemporary model for them to use in determining what a democracy should look like. At least, this is the contention of the author of the book I cited that I can't remember his name! Hires an editor (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If the author says so, it is ok... but this is part of the academic war that I mentioned... so I think we need to extra careful about how we would express it, i.e. present with reliable sources the significant perspectives from the various scholars who are related with this issue. Also I did found some reliable sources concerning Mesopotamia and India check my comments below!A.Cython (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source

No way we are going to the pseudo-historical Black Athena as a reference here. As the article on Bernal says, he is a "scholar of modern Chinese political history", and as such is waaaaaay outside his field here. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that is my opinion as well, but his work i.e. Black Athena is considered the only respected attack to the Greek origins of democracy, according to an expert of academia, John Montfort Dunn. At least that is what John Dunn wrote on his book "History of democracy". Note that he quickly dismiss it as a pure theory, due to the lack of evidence. I am afraid I have failed miserable to find other reliable sources in order to maintain a balance in the article.A.Cython (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If John Dunn "quickly dismissed as pure theory", how can he consider it "respected" at the same time. That sounds completely contradictory to me. If you haven't found reliable sources to that effect, then the remedy is to keep looking rather than inserting an unreliable source. That is not the answer. Bottom line is we should search for the most reliable sources on the history of democracy and include only those. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In the introduction, he spend a paragraph or two trying to explain why democracy by many is viewed as a western product. He says that some scholars over the years have attacked the traditional scientific knowledge about whether the origins of democracy are Greek. And in there he mentions that Black Athena is the most respected of all these attacks i.e. its author presented strong arguments that democracy was imported from the East like many things (i.e. alphabet). However there are no evidence (yet) to support these claims, and therefore he dismiss it as a pure theory. It is not contradiction, he just presents a summary of what has happened in the literature so far, and thus justifying why he is starting with Athens. Now maybe this is old news since the book is from 1993, so so so... if do have any more recent references, please bring it up. Now if this is also unreliable then nothing is left to counter balance the article.A.Cython (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I did found some reliable sources concerning Mesopotamia and India. check it here (pages 17-25) The summary of the research work is that there are no clear cut evidence to state that there was a democracy in Sumeria or in India. Even the scholar who worked on the Sumeria case admits that with the current evidence it is impossible to distinguish it from a primitive oligarchy(see at page 20)! The author of the book conclude that:

We have no indication that there was a developmental connection between the Greek democracy and a hypothetical precursor, or that any record of earlier democracy survived to influence later people and cultures, as that of Greece. M. I. Finley has asserted that "What ever the facts may be [about democracies in early Mesopotamia], their impact on history, on later societies, was null. The Greeks and only the Greeks discovered democracy in that sense precisely as Christopher Columbus, not some Viking seaman discovered America."

After I will re-write the Athenian democracy will try to include these new staff with their proper references along with points made in the text.Enjoy Life!A.Cython (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

USA first in Universal Suffrage?

Section 4.4 incorrectly states that the United States became the first country to grant universal suffrage for all adults 21 and over after the 24th amendment. Universal Suffrage for 21 and over adults existed in New Zealand since 1893 according to this article itself. Further it existed in the United Kingdom since 1928, Sweden since 1917, India since 1952 to name a few nations according to the article on Universal Suffrage.Andy anno (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it states that the US was the first to guarantee universal suffrage - it's a fairly weak arguement.

Eretria

I once heard that Eretria had a democracy a few years before the 'traditional' date of 508 BC for the Athenian democracy, but I have since been unable to find any information about this. Does anybody know anything?--SkiDragon (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably... but you may want to check this book:

Robinson Eric W., The First Democracies: Early Popular Government Outside Athens, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997

Nevertheless, Athens was not only the place where a complex and sophisticated system of rule with democratic characteristics emerged (or should I say where democracy was defined) but also it is also the place where the birthplace of political thought (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle). And any society before Athens, none had any degree of influence to later generations regarding the concept of democracy. Even today the Athenian democracy acts as a "reference point" for anything related to democracy.

For more about the influence of Athens you may want to check the following:

• History Today, 44:1 (1994:Jan.) p.22
• History Today, 44:1 (1994:Jan.) p.14

A.Cython (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus we should remember that democracy on local scale was much more common then on the state scale, but some sources tend to ignore this difference. For example, there was no state wide democracy in medieval Europe or pre-communist China, but self-governance institutions in many villages and few towns and cities (that in Europe) were surprisingly democratic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly just an anecdotal point. However, the same source claimed that Eretria may have inspired some Athenian reforms, being so close to Athens, and since Euboea was apparently one of the main sources of grain for the city of Athens.--SkiDragon (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of Piotrus. Scale is an important factor that limits the effectiveness of a democracy and probably that is the reason why modern democracies do not resemble the institutions of ancient Athens.A.Cython (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First democratic country

We all love "famous firsts", but let's be historically accurate. If there were oligarchies which - centuries later - developed into democracies, that's fine. Let's write about how the upper classes ruled (or contended for power), and let's also write about how the governments of these countries changed to become "democratic" (and in what sense).

As an American, I can hardly avoid comparing all histories of all countries to that of my own, and in particular, all reports that democracy developed in a certain place and time to the development of democracy in 18th century America. I hope this does not make me hopelessly biased, but merely aware of my own perspective.

I'd like to see the article be much more specific about tracing the democratic aspects (i.e., qualities and features) such as suffrage, equal rights, the "rule of law" under which the government is subordinate to a constitution, and so on. There are various definitions of democracy, and the latest one I've read is that of Rudolph Rummel, famous for his theory that democratic countries do not wage war upon each other (see Democratic peace theory). Of course, he has a very specific notion of "democracy":

• By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights. [3]

If we are strict on what democracy is, then the American and any other representative democracy are not democracies and therefore should not be in the article according to your rational. And in fact if we are super strict then this article should not exist since no society is 100% democratic. That is because in a representative democracy there is no political equality in practice or even in theory and yes equality is characteristic of democracy. Some of the things you have described e.g. constitution are not unique within a democracy i.e. you can have a monarchy and still have a constitution. My attempt (and my opinion where the article should go) is to provide at different eras of the human history the evolution of the democratic ideal or at least to what extent it has been materialised in different places and times. Unfortunately the progress is slow but I hope it moves steadily forward. The antiquity section is more or less complete so now I working on the middle ages. Subsequent effort will focus on enlightenment i.e. American and French revolution etc etc... Oh and something else liberal democracy just one flavour of democracy there are many other i.e. this article is not the history of liberal democracy.A.Cython (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC) ______________________________________________________

This passage is slightly Amero-centric, for example the following gives the impression that the FPS was the first of its kind: 1790s First Party System in U.S. involves invention of locally-rooted political parties.... networks of party newspapers; new canvassing techniques..............peaceful transition between parties (1800). I'd like to add some other examples Cacadores (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

Initiatives and referendums

I just wanted to note that the article doesn't appear to cover the historical development of initiatives and referendums, whereby the people decide on laws directly. See direct democracy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. So far the article is readable upto the roman section, after that the article resembles more like sections of lists... Currently I am reading some books and trying to decide how to write the article after the antiquity. What you are mentioning should definitely be mentioned as a way to have democracy more closely to ancient demos (though in some cases there might not be a link.. oh well).A.Cython (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1