History of democracy
A democracy is a political system, or a system of decision-making within an institution, organization, or state, in which members have a share of power. Modern democracies are characterized by two capabilities of their citizens that differentiate them fundamentally from earlier forms of government: to intervene in society and have their sovereign held accountable to the international laws of other governments of their kind. Democratic government is commonly juxtaposed with oligarchic and monarchic systems, which are ruled by a minority and a sole monarch respectively.
Democracy is generally associated with the efforts of the ancient Greeks, whom 18th-century intellectuals such as Montesquieu considered the founders of Western civilization. These individuals attempted to leverage these early democratic experiments into a new template for post-monarchical political organization. The extent to which these 18th-century democratic revivalists succeeded in turning the democratic ideals of the ancient Greeks into the dominant political institution of the next 300 years is hardly debatable, even if the moral justifications they often employed might be. Nevertheless, the critical historical juncture catalyzed by the resurrection of democratic ideals and institutions fundamentally transformed the ensuing centuries and has dominated the international landscape since the dismantling of the final vestige of the British Empire following the end of the Second World War.
Modern representative democracies attempt to bridge the gap between Rousseau's depiction of the state of nature and Hobbes's depiction of society as inevitably authoritarian through 'social contracts' that enshrine the rights of the citizens, curtail the power of the state, and grant agency through the right to vote.
Antiquity
Prehistoric origins
Anthropologists have identified forms of proto-democracy that date back to small bands of hunter-gatherers that predate the establishment of agrarian, sedentary societies and still exist virtually unchanged in isolated indigenous groups today. In these groups of generally 50–100 individuals, often tied closely by familial bonds, decisions are reached by consensus or majority and many times without the designation of any specific chief.These types of democracy are commonly identified as tribalism, or primitive democracy. In this sense, a primitive democracy usually takes shape in small communities or villages when there are face-to-face discussions in a village, council or with a leader who has the backing of village elders or other cooperative forms of government. This becomes more complex on a larger scale, such as when the village and city are examined more broadly as political communities. All other forms of rule – including monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, and oligarchy – have flourished in more urban centers, often those with concentrated populations. David Graeber and David Wengrow, in The Dawn of Everything, argue in contrast that cities and early settlements were more varied and unpredictable in terms of how their political systems alternated and evolved from more to less democratic.
The concepts of democracy and constitution as a form of government originated in ancient Athens in the sixth-century BC. In ancient Greece, where there were many city-states with different forms of government, democracy was contrasted with governance by elites, by one person, by tyrants, etc.
Potential proto-democratic societies
Although fifth-century BC Athens is widely considered to have been the first state to develop a sophisticated system of rule that we today call democracy, in recent decades scholars have explored the possibility that advancements toward democratic government occurred independently in the Near East, the Indian subcontinent, and elsewhere before this.Mesopotamia
Studying pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia, Thorkild Jacobsen used Sumerian epic, myth, and historical records to identify what he has called primitive democracy. By this, Jacobsen means a government in which ultimate power rests with the mass of free male citizens, although "the various functions of government are as yet little specialised the power structure is loose". In early Sumer, kings like Gilgamesh did not hold the autocratic power that later Mesopotamian rulers wielded. Rather, major city-states functioned with councils of elders and "young men" that possessed the final political authority, and had to be consulted on all major issues such as war.The work has gained little outright acceptance. Scholars criticize the use of the word "democracy" in this context since the same evidence also can be interpreted to demonstrate a power struggle between primitive monarchy and noble classes, a struggle in which the common people function more like pawns rather than any kind of sovereign authority. Jacobsen conceded that the vagueness of the evidence prohibits the separation between the Mesopotamian democracy from a primitive oligarchy.
Phoenicia
The practice of "governing by assembly" was at least part of how ancient Phoenicians made important decisions. One source is the story of Wen-Amon, an Egyptian trader who travelled north to the Phoenician city of Byblos around 1100 BC to trade for Phoenician lumber. After loading his lumber, a group of pirates surrounded Wen-Amon and his cargo ship. The Phoenician prince of Byblos was called in to fix the problem, whereupon he summoned his mw-'dwt, an old Semitic word meaning assembly, to reach a decision. This shows that Byblos was ruled in part by a popular assembly.Ancient Iran
Several forms of proto-democratic governance also existed in Ancient Iran, particularly among the Medes, Achaemenids, and Parthians.The Gathas, attributed to the Iranian prophet Zoroaster in 6th century BC, emphasize moral choice, civic responsibility, and the selection of righteous leaders. In the sacred text Yasna 30, Zoroaster calls on people to “listen to the best arguments, ponder with good judgment, and choose freely their path.” The concept of Vohu Khshathra Vairya reflects the ideal of a just, elected rulership. According to scholars, Zoroastrianism promoted a form of spiritual and political democracy, emphasizing individual judgment and non-discrimination between men and women in civic decision-making.
According to Diodorus Siculus, following the fall of the Assyrian Empire, the Medes established independent city-states that were “administered in a democratic fashion.” Similarly, Herodotus describes the Medes' revolt against the Assyrians as a popular uprising that led to self-governance before eventually transitioning to monarchy under Deioces in 7th century BC.
One of the earliest recorded constitutional debates took place in 522 BCE, following the death of the usurper Gaumata. Herodotus recounts a pivotal discussion among seven Persian nobles regarding the future of governance. Otanes proposed a democratic system based on equality before the law, appointment of officials by lot, public deliberation, and collective rule. Though ultimately unsuccessful in swaying the decision, Otanes' speech is seen by some scholars as advocating a radical form of democracy, and his arguments are cited as among the earliest theoretical defenses of democratic governance. Herodotus later defends the historicity of this debate, stating that Otanes had indeed advised the Persians “to become democratic”.
During the Parthian Empire, political power was shared between the monarchy and a bicameral parliament known as the Magistan. According to Strabo and Justin, the council was composed of noble families and religious scholars, primarily the magi. Although the kings held ultimate power, the parliament often played a decisive role in royal succession and policy-making, suggesting an early model of constitutional monarchy. The first session of the Megisthanes is reported to have occurred during the reign of Mithridates I in 137 BCE.
Indian subcontinent
Another claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics" of India, Sangha |s and gana|s, which existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century. In addition, Diodorus—a Greek historian who wrote two centuries after the time of Alexander the Great's invasion of India—mentions that independent and democratic states existed in India.File:Mahajanapadas.png|right|upright=1.2|thumb|The Mahajanapadas were the sixteen most powerful and vast kingdoms and republics of the era. There were also a number of smaller kingdoms stretching the length and breadth of Ancient India. Among the Mahajanapadas and smaller states, the Shakyas, Koliyas, Mallakas, and Licchavis followed republican government.
The chief characteristics of the gana seem to have been as follows: 1) A deliberative assembly that discussed all major state decisions. Silence was taken for consent, and decisions were usually by consensus, though the existence of voting as a rarely exercised procedure is attested. The body met regularly, had full financial, administrative, and judicial authority A chief Other officials who are rarely mentioned. They seem to have obeyed the decisions of the gana. The Licchavis had a primary governing body of 7,077 rajas, presumably the heads of the most important families. In contrast, the Shakyas, during the period around Gautama Buddha, had the assembly open to all men, rich and poor. Early "republics" or Gaṇasaṅgha|, such as Mallakas, centered in the city of Kusinagara, and the Vajji League, centered in the city of Vaishali, existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century CE. The most famous clan amongst the ruling confederate tribes of the Vajji Mahajanapada were the Licchavis. The Magadha kingdom included republican communities such as the community of Rajakumara. Villages had their own assemblies under their local chiefs called Gramakas. Their administrations were divided into executive, judicial, and military functions.
Scholars differ over how best to describe these governments, and the vague, sporadic quality of the evidence allows for wide disagreements. Some emphasize the central role of the assemblies and thus tout them as democracies; other scholars focus on the upper-class domination of the leadership and possible control of the assembly and see an oligarchy or an aristocracy. Despite the assembly's obvious power, it has not yet been established whether the composition and participation were truly popular. The first main obstacle is the lack of evidence describing the popular power of the assembly. This is reflected in the Arthashastra, an ancient handbook for monarchs on how to rule efficiently. It contains a chapter on how to deal with the sangas, which includes injunctions on manipulating the noble leaders, yet it does not mention how to influence the mass of the citizens—a surprising omission if democratic bodies, not the aristocratic families, actively controlled the republican governments. Another issue is the persistence of the four-tiered Varna class system. The duties and privileges on the members of each particular caste—rigid enough to prohibit someone sharing a meal with those of another order—might have affected the roles members were expected to play in the state, regardless of the formality of the institutions. A central tenet of democracy is the notion of shared decision-making power. The absence of any concrete notion of citizen equality across these caste system boundaries leads many scholars to claim that the true nature of s and s is not comparable to truly democratic institutions.