LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteInteresting question. Definitely interested in what answers will come up
I'm hoping to tap into the collective historical knowledge of the forum to answer a question that has occoured to me.
On another a thread was started on 'Islam & democracy'. Being a contrarian I decided to argue 'yes', and so I decided to do a count of muslim nations that are some form of democracy at the moment. Much to my surprise I got close to 20 (if anyone wants the list I can dig it up). Imperfect all, but democracies nonetheless.
Here is the question that occoured - when did the world get on or near that many democracies? Now, I need to make my definitions clear. I'm not talking modern liberal democracies. Societies with a limited franchise or even slavery can be permitted if elected leaders were more or less the ones who governed the nation.
The obvious nations that get in here are the US & UK (especially after 1832). France under the 3rd Republic is in, under Napoleon 3 not, and I'm not sure about Louis Phillppe. Prussia in the early C20th is sort of a line - any less power to parliaments means no democracy, any more gets you included. Self governing colonies like those in Australia don't count. The areas where I'm unsure are smaller European nations - the low countries, Scandanavia, Italy, Greece, Iberian Penninsular. I'm also unsure about Latin America. I know that there were democracies that rose & fell there, but I'm not sure how many there were at any given time.
So, how long did it take for us to rack up 20 simultaneous democracies. Were we there in 1840?, 1880? 1900? 1920? or was it even later?
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Interesting question. Definitely interested in what answers will come up
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Me being me I'll probably end up spending hours trawling thoguht Wiki & assorted stuff going country by country. Hoping the collective wisdom of the forum can save me some time.Originally Posted by bigross86
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
First one would have to agree on a certain ""threshold" for when a country can be counted as a democracy. How many people must be allowed to vote? Does it still counts if only males are allowed? If there are destinction between races & ethnics? Wealth of the voters? And how much power must the elected body have? Imperial Germany for example had an elected parliament, but the voters were seperated intro three classes, based on wealth AND the parliament was much less powerful than for example than the one in the UK at the same time. If you use only the qualification that some people must have a vote, you could stretch this so far that even the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations could be considered one.
Edit: Wait, I somehow missed your last paragraph...has it always been there? (In my defence, 5 Minutes ago I was still asleep). Gotta wait some time and then give an "actual" repley.
uh I might be wrong
Would you count 1776 USA a democracy? Only very few men were actually given the right to vote.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
I'm convinced that the internet sometimes hides things or switches 'em around just to make me look stupid.
As for the question, I'm trying really hard to avoid heading to Wiki right now... I have no idea what the answer is, but I'm intrigued.
Yes, I think so. Limited franchise, yes, but it wasn't an oligarchy or anything.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
You can add Denmark and Netherlands after 1848, looks like. I hadn't realized the 1848 revolutions had that much of an immediate impact (both lasting and immediate, that is) anywhere.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Also I think that maybe the direction that follows afterward would be a good judge. So even if the US was not a "full" democracy in 1776, enfranchisement was expanded aftwards. Would the situation have stayed the same (or worsen) one might argue otherwise.Yes, I think so. Limited franchise, yes, but it wasn't an oligarchy or anything.
uh I might be wrong
That's an interesting point. My first thought is that if you follow that logic it's hard to avoid dismissing as illegitimate any democracy that didn't last (or rather, any that fell of its own accord, without foreign intervention). Assuming that there are examples of such, which I seem to think there are, but I can't come up with any off the top of my head.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Well it would for example dismiss Germany of 1848 (and rightly so, imho).
uh I might be wrong
I can certainly understand not counting the more ephemeral democracies, but what's your cutoff? How long does a democracy have to last before it counts?
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Democracy exists whether by the ballot or the bullet - OOE
From that pov, we've always had democracy its just that we added more conditions after the 1700s.
Think about a village back in the good old days with a head man. He could only hold that position unless there was consent. With elections that process just happens more often. And the period a person can rule becomes shorter ie elections when fair do away with rulers for life.
So BF, your question is more about the period when time limited or fixed terms were introduced and became popular worldwide rather than democracy per se isn't it ?
Last edited by Double Edge; 11 Jun 11, at 20:36.
I would not count the time in years, but look if it managed to actually have power while it was in place. The Weimar republic was rather short, but before its fall it was a democracy with working institutions.
uh I might be wrong
When did the whole habit of voting for leaders in modern times get started anyway? The Netherlands have been a republic since 1581, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of citizens voting. The US constitution and declaration of independence have been based in part on the comparative documents of the Dutch Republic.
edit: Also, I think that the treshold should be "voting", even if limited to certain classes or genders. Perhaps we should say that at least 25% of the population or so should be able to vote.
When looking at history, we often see a date where a nation became a 'democracy' and a few decades later a moment where women were finally allowed to vote. Still we refer to the state as a democracy, even befroe women had acquired voting rights.
Last edited by Nightowl; 11 Jun 11, at 21:42.
The one you see is a decoy.
This might qualify as good example of nascent democracy from ancient times
Licchavi (clan) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The introductory portions of the Cullakalinga Jātaka and the Ekapaṇṇa Jātaka mention the Licchavi as having 7,707 Rājās. The number is one of convention, and unlikely to have been exact. It does demonstrate that Licchavi, unlike most of its neighbours, was not an absolute monarchy. Ultimate authority rested with the 7,707 raja who met each year to elect one of their member as ruler and a council of nine to assist him. It was far from a democracy as only a small portion of the Licchavi population qualified to vote. Those with raja status were only the male heads of households who belonged to the kshatriya varna.
Keyboard is mightier than gun
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: