I want some matter on relevance of democracy in today's world?

Question

it should fit the topic

Answer 1

Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek δῆμος demos, "people," and κράτος kratos, "rule") is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have an equal vote or voice in shaping policy. Today democracy is often assumed to be liberal democracy,[7][8] but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public

democracy. - Churchill said, it's not perfect, but it's the best system we have.
is a political system where the citizens vote on all major policy decisions. It is called direct because, in the classical forms, there are no intermediaries or representatives. Current examples include many small civic organizations (like college faculties) and town meetings in New England (usually in towns under 10,000 population). Critics note that it sometimes emphasises the act of voting more than other democratic procedures such as free speech and press and civic organisations. That is, these critics argue, that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue.[1]

DIRECT DECOMCRACY - All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. Today, a limited direct democracy exists in some Swiss cantons that practice it in its literal form. Direct democracy obviously becomes difficult when the electorate is large--for example some 30,000 or more citizens were eligible in Athenian democracy. However, the extensive use of referenda, as in California, is akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with over 20 million potential voters.[2] Modern direct democracy tries accommodate this problem and sees a role for strictly controlled representatives. It is characterised by three pillars; referendums (initiated by governments or legislatures or by citizens responding to legislation), initiatives (initiated by citizens) and recall elections (on holders of public office)

20th century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy", variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization and economic circumstances. World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them nominally democratic. In the 1920 democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought a disenchantment and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Thus the rise of fascism and dictatorships in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in Poland, the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others. Together with Stalin's Communism in the Soviet Union, these made the 1930s the "Age of Dictators".

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratisation of the occupied Germany and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonisation, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions.In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had a predominantly free-market economy and developed a welfare state, reflecting a general consensus among their electorates and political parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and Communist countries; it later declined in the state-controlled economies. By 1960, the vast majority of nation-states were nominally democracies, although the majority of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies.)
This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005
Enlarge
This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005
Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.
Enlarge
Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.

A subsequent wave of democratisation brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Several of the military dictatorships in South America became democratic in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid- to late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratisation and liberalisation of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union. The democratic trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan.

The number of liberal democracies currently stands at an all-time high and has been growing without interruption for some time. As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society

Answer 2

We begin doubt about the efficacy of democracy when we are saddled with bad politicians, hopelessly. In elections, you don't have any choice, worth making. You are seething with a rage and you want to resort to extra-legal means to set things right. That is how many ultra grow in the society. Let me state at the outset that I always prefer democracy, even with all its foibles. As to the pitfalls, let me look at after examining the efficacy of a totalitarian regime. You tend to like a totalitarian regime, before its efficiency and the control over the adminstration. Totalitarianism could be of two kinds. One, the power is concentrated on an individual, backed a powerful army. That is undobtedly something no civilised personal will approve of, to day. Consider the zeal of the Nepalese people who wanted to overthrow the King. It is painful if monarchy happens to be least concerned about the welfare of the people. Second situation is the system, an organisation or party is running the government. The example is the Communist party of China. It is a total iron curtain. The country seems to be progressing all right. It looks like there is less of corruption and hence more efficiency. Assuming that slowly some erosion values takes place, what is the mechanism to rectify it. Like the situation the Soviet Russia found itself in. A corrupt party machinery failed to carry out the ideals of the party. The monolith organisation turned out to be big burden on the country. The result was there for all to see. The country has to much of its unwieldy territories. The party had to be revamped. Who knows the same thing may not happen in China. The point is that corruption and other evils will not happen in democracy. But, the difference is that in democracy there is always an option to democratically correct the things. In a totalitarian regime, if you want to correct the bad, there need to be revolution or blood shed. In the things are hopelessly bad, in democracy, it needs a big movement to clean the Aegean's stables, may be at the cost of some lives. But, ultmatley, the voice of the people will certainly prevail. Democracy becomes ineffective only the people remain less vigilant. Where they are active and keep excercising their democratic duty, democracy is still the better option.

Answer 3

There are some differences between what democracy means, or how it should function, and how it really does function. Ideally, democracy is the idea of all people being allowed to vote for those of some minority who run for offices. But the value of such a system loses ground when people can be collectively swayed in their beliefs and thinking, which is the case in America today because of corporate news media (which often has its own political agenda). Democracy contrasts, however, with republic government, which is, theoretically, the broader idea of people running the government despite the electoral system. This can really only happen when people think for themselves and act according to need rather than external influence.

Answer 4

Democracy has been put to a heavier test ever. Gone are the days when democracy had to put up a heavy fight with communism. Now as we see in the Rocky series of fight to death, the democracy is up against the greatest challenger ever on earth 'The Terrorism'. Hail victory to Democracy.

Answer 5

Democracy is great but not the way it works in India. One should not be carried away by the word freedom. The rule of democracy is majority controls the minority. The media which is controlled by the elite can manipulate the opinion of majority by stoking religion and jingoism. This is the reason why great and honest people can not do anything in India.

Answer 6

Of all the experiments in government to date, democracy is the only type of government that seems to work and is one that nearly everyone in the world seeks.

Oligarchies, monarchies, theocracies, tyrannies, dictatorships, socialism and communism have all failed or are failing. The human spirit seeks to express itself and, in so far as governmental models are concerned, democracy is the only option that allows this personal expression and provides stability.
The only other option allowing the individual to have input into their government is anarchy, but that is always very short-lived due to its instability and rapid decline into tyranny.

Answer 7

Democracy is alway relevant because it represents
freedom and not slavery.

Answer 8

look, GOD has given us powers, & in democracy, people loan these powers to a government, which is supposed to work as a trust. no system is perfect, but i believe that we all believe & trust IN GOD, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, that's what matters in democracy.!!

Answer 9

relevance of democracy

Answer 10

Democracy is the best system because the people have freedom to do what they want.