Democracy ('rule of the people,' from Gr. dēmos, 'the people,' and krateo, 'I rule') is a form of government in which power rests with the body of the citizens. It is opposed to monarchy, the rule of one; to aristocracy, the rule of the 'best' or nobles; and to oligarchy, the rule of the few. It is government of the people by the people, and for the people, as opposed to government by a single chief or a dominant class.
Democracy was a great force in the ancient world, but as then prevalent it had certain characteristics, which very clearly distinguish it from its modern forms. In antiquity the democracy was associated with the city. There was no system of representation by which the people spread over extensive territories could send deputies to speak and act for them in a common parliament. In the ancient democracies, the people were, in the original sense of the word, citizens, who personally appeared and spoke and voted in the assemblies. Another great feature in the ancient world was the existence of a great number of slaves who had no political and few civil rights—i.e. a very large and important part of the population were not reckoned among the citizens at all. Hence it will be seen that the 'people' in the ancient democracy was limited in number, consisting of a city population, and excluding the labouring class or slaves. Thus constituted, the ancient democracy had a most interesting history. It attained to its highest and finest development in the Athens of Pericles before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war. Besides being a conflict for the headship of Greece between Athens and Sparta, that war was a struggle for supremacy in the Hellenic world between the democratic and aristocratic principles, of which these cities were respectively the representatives and champions. It resulted in the overthrow of the Athenian democracy, but the struggle of the people against the rich and privileged classes continued in the Greek cities as long as they retained their independence. At Rome, too, the history of the city is to a large degree the record of popular struggle against the privileged and wealthy classes. Quiescent for about two hundred years after the reforms of the 4th century B.C., it broke out afresh at the time of the Gracchi, and ended with the triumph of a great chief of the democracy, Julius Cæsar. But this triumph meant the end of the republic, and the permanent rule of a single head, as consolidated under Augustus.
Among the Germanic tribes which overthrew the Roman empire, as among most peoples at a similar stage of development, the general body of freemen had considerable power. But the term democracy properly refers to communities in a comparatively advanced state of political evolution, and it would be an anachronism to apply the theories and problems connected with the word to nations still in the tribal stage.
With the growth of the republics of medieval Italy, and of the cities of Flanders and Germany, began a democratic movement similar in some respects to that of ancient times. It was similar, inasmuch as it was associated with city life, but it differed from the ancient democracy, in so far as slavery ceased to be an important factor, and the development of the medieval cities was controlled or affected by the great feudal states which had now risen. As the great modern states have become consolidated, the cities which played so important a part in medieval life have been absorbed in them. The process has been a slow one, for Venice was an independent republic till the close of the 18th century. Hamburg was fully incorporated in the German empire only in 1888. In the city life which thus came to a close, the struggle between rich and poor, between privileged classes and the people, was more or less present.
The modern democracy differs essentially from the ancient and medieval forms. The people no longer consist merely of a body of burgesses limited in number, but of millions of men inhabiting extensive countries. A government on such a basis is rendered possible through the representative system, by which the vast electorate choose a convenient number of deputies, on whom the legislative and other functions are conferred. Another important point of difference is the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and the other unfree conditions which formerly prevailed. Freedom of conscience, freedom in the choice of one's residence and profession, have been more or less fully realised. We must also note the progress towards the abolition of all privileged classes, and towards equality before the law.
The modern democracy, as we now see it, is the result of a gradual process of development continued through centuries amidst the severest struggles. Such struggle will appear to be inevitable, when we consider that democracies have grown up in large states in which absolutism formerly prevailed, and in which the military system prevails even yet. Among the decisive steps in the modern struggle of the people against the old classes and systems should be noted the long contest of the Dutch against Spain, the great English revolutions of 1642 and 1688, the war of American Independence in 1776, the great French Revolution of 1789, and the revolutionary periods of 1830 and 1848. The English revolutions of 1642 and 1688 established parliamentary rule in England, though on a narrow basis. Yet they had the important result of proving the fitness of a new type of government, which further became a model for similar institutions in other countries. The greatest event in the evolution of democracy, however, was the French Revolution of 1789; though it failed for the time, it shook the old system to its foundations; it everywhere spread new ideas, and raised questions that could not again be set aside. The revolution of 1830 showed that the reactionary conditions prevalent after Waterloo had no claim to permanency. The revolutionary movements of 1848, which affected France, Italy, Austria, and Germany, were apparently a failure, yet they overthrew what remained of the Feudal system in western and central Europe. But the most significant thing connected with that period is the fact that only a few years afterwards universal suffrage was introduced in all the countries where its influence had been felt. Governments which had been most active in suppressing the revolution found it expedient to adopt its cardinal principles.
To England has been given the great historic mission of working out the methods on which the democracy has so far been realised. Her parliament, first constituted under Simon de Montfort and Edward I. in the 13th century, was, as we have seen, firmly established by the long contest with the Stuarts. After so many centuries of experience, trial, and struggle, the English parliament has become the mother of parliaments. England has not been the first, however, to bring democratic institutions to their full development. The Reform Bill of 1832 conferred the franchise on the middle classes; but it was not till the reforms of 1867 and 1885 that she has approximated to universal suffrage. The British government is now substantially a democracy, modified so far by older forms, the monarchy and the House of Lords. In many countries which have adopted parliamentary institutions, the power of the people is much more seriously curtailed; in Germany, for example, by a sovereign claiming to be of divine right. The German emperor may be regarded as wielding a power co-ordinate with that of the people, and resting on the army. The position of his chancellor does not depend on a parliamentary majority—he is the servant of the emperor; yet while not depending on a parliamentary majority, he finds it expedient and even necessary to have one. The government of the United States, as also of the several states that constitute the Union, is democratic.
As we have seen, the distinctive features of the modern democracy are the widest personal freedom, by which each man has the liberty and responsibility of shaping his own career; equality before the law; and political power in the form of universal suffrage, exercised through the representative system. With these are associated universal education, and on the continent of Europe universal liability to military service. In Britain and the United States universal liability to military service exists also in theory as regards the militia. On the European continent it is a momentous fact imposed upon its peoples by the necessities of the struggle for existence, which the moral development of mankind has not yet been able so to regulate as to put an end to war. Anglo-Saxon countries are happily freer from such necessities. It is an interesting fact, however, that Prussia, which was the first great nation to adopt universal education, was also the first to introduce universal military service.
It is important to remember that the growth of the modern democracy has gone hand in hand with the general development of the most advanced nations of the world. The consolidation of the political power of the people is the result of far-reaching causes operating on a great scale throughout the history of modern nations. The growth of the democracy is intimately connected with the growth of every other factor in the social life. For example, the different stages in the rise of the democracy could be paralleled by the improvements in the art of printing. The development of the democracy has on the one hand created the demand for cheap literature and cheap newspapers, but it has also on the other hand depended on the supply of them. Further, the growth of the cheap newspaper and of cheap literature depends on the industrial development, on the improvement of our technical capacities and resources, on man's growing mastery over nature. To the production of the daily newspaper a thousand technical appliances are subsidiary. Steam and electricity are the great forces that move the vast mechanism on which society is now based. In fact the growth of the democracy is intimately connected with an industrial and technical development which has culminated in the railway, the penny post, the electric telegraph, and the steam printing-press. The peculiar influence of the human voice has not been superseded, yet it is chiefly through the telegraph and the printing-press that the modern democracy obtains the education which the ancient democracy received in their popular assemblies and in the daily intercourse of the market-place.
Thus it will be seen that the democracy as we now have it is an outcome of the general historic movement of modern times, and that it is a fact which is not yet accomplished, but is still in process of making. What its ultimate results for good or evil may be, no man can predict. Scarcely any one, however, will deny that it has greatly raised the average level of intelligence and morality in modern nations. The life of the citizen from the day he enters the elementary school is a continual process of education, and it brings with it in abundant measure the discipline of responsibility. It carries with it also the safeguard of publicity. The public interests are protected by incessant watchfulness and public criticism. On the other hand, the drawbacks of democratic government are obvious enough. Such vast masses of electors are too much controlled by governments, caucuses, and special interests; real interests are concealed under party watchwords, and sacrificed to them. Popular passions are liable to upset the plans of experienced policy, and the demagogue too often ousts the true statesman from his well-merited position in the esteem of the people. It may be added that in the administration of foreign affairs, the changefulness and publicity usually characteristic of the democracy place it at a disadvantage as compared with the secrecy, continuity, and tenacity of a government like that of Russia.
Much has been written on the merits and demerits, the advantages and disadvantages of the democracy. It really perhaps concerns us more to observe the fact that it is the inevitable outcome of the prevalent historic forces, that it has a great function in modern history, and that it is the duty of the citizen and statesman to do their duty under it, and to adapt it to the material, intellectual, and moral improvement of men.
See the articles GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTATION; De Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1862); Motley, Historic Progress of American Democracy (1869); Freeman, Comparative Politics (1873); Sir T. E. May, Democracy in Europe (1878); Sir H. S. Maine, Popular Government (1885); Bryce, The American Commonwealth (1888); Lecky, Democracy and Liberty (1896).