Democracy simply implied popular participation. Also, the general agreement among scholars is that sovereignty lies with the people. So, how can we reconcile the two?
I think that depends the way you define both variables. In my opinion democray should be understood in a broad sense (not just popular participation).
Best regards.
With or without sovereignty, democracy can still be achieved. Empirical evidences abound around the world to my assertion.
That’s one of the biggest questions of political theory. For Hobbes and other classical/modern thinkers the sovereign can be one person (p. e. the monarchy), an assembly of persons (aristocracy) or an assembly of all the citizens (democracy). The question of sovereignty delegation in a representative democracy is other problem. For Rousseau, this is not truly democracy. But Sieyès argues that’s this is the only way of make the common people “sovereign” in moderns times. We can ask: is the liberal democracy capable of make the people presents in the government by representation? One of the greatest texts about the matter is Hanna Pitkin's The Concept of Representation. Others references: The principles of representative government of B. Manin; Le peuple introuvable of P. Rosanvallon; Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy of N. Urbinati.
I think you mean democracy and popular sovereignty. The sovereignty of a country is only in name equivalent to the sovereignty of the people. For all practical purposes, national sovereignty and democracy are separate matters.
Interesting question. At first glance there would appear to be no quid pro quo relationship between sovereignty and democracy, but one may detect strands, fronds and daisy chains on deeper investigation. An illuminating and entertaining tangent to this concerns the late 18th/early 19th century panic over sedition, treason and sovereignty,(whereupon the Pitt government suspended Habeas Corpus in 1794), which highlighted the notion of democracy and its place in the constitution never knowingly prized, (you don't' know what you've got till its gone), and the machinations which led, both by subterraneous and more direct overland routes to the Great Reform Act 1832.
see Malcolm I.Thomis and Peter Holt (1977) Threats of Revolution in Britain, 1789-1848. London. Macmillan, and a belt and braces review of the idea that democracy is purely an invention of the ruling class to stop the peasants revolting;
Crisis without revolution : The ideological watershed in Victorian England
Article in Revue de Synthèse 107(1-2):53-78 · January 1986
DOI: 10.1007/BF03189011 · Source: PubMed
Democracy means many things- compare ancient Greece, Mao's China, France and the UK for a start. Sovereignty means having control over defence, currency and foreign policy - hence most EU members have delegated part of their sovereignty to differing degrees
One aspect is the (to me: relevant but not solid) division (and theoretical distinction) between domestic politics and foreign policy/the international relations of a state.
In domestic politics we often talk (or hear) of "popular sovereignty"/"sovereignty of the people". This concept as it is practised/understood in modern liberal-democratic 'representative' forms of rule is a very indirect one. The sovereignty of the people is a kind of atmosphere or symbolism. In practice it can for example be seen as having a certain indirect effect on the political culture, e.g. people with the imaginative conception of popular sovereignty or 'their' state as a republic may act somehow differently compared to people living in a monarchy or so.
One could also propose that there may be a placebo effect (more or less effective).
In foreign policy/international politics states are mostly seen as less interconnected/interchanging with their society. Thus sovereignty here is first of all seen as state's sovereignty (and within this often the dominant role of the government. But others would take other facets/factors of what constitutes the [concept of] "state" into consideration).
In a complexity-reduced way one can simplify (amongst many other things) a difference of the understanding of sovereignty in todays "world society" as:
- the classical nation states with their constitutive elements:
a) Staatsvolk, citizenry etc.
b) Staatsgebiet (clearly marked out territory)
c) Staatsgewalt (state authority; among other features of this: mostly the effective installation of a monopoly on the use of force)
- The new approach/ideology/? of the "responsible state(hood)". In the terms of the "Responsibility to Protect" and other concepts. This development has different implications and proposed 'new rules': States have sovereignty only insofar they conform to metanational (not decided by "themselves"/their governments) standards. These standards could be the ones of e.g. transnational organisations or international treaties or (more or less formal and transparently) institutionalised regimes or (more or less vague) norms.
Democracy is a concept of governance practiced in a sovereign state or community. It is only a sovereign state or community that decides which type of government to practice. The problem with the question is the erroneous attempt to define sovereignty from macro perspective without looking at sovereignty from the micro level. Among the Igbo nation of Nigeria, the various communities are sovereign (it is equally called autonomous communities) with authentic grassroots administration that has all the trappings of liberal democracy.
People in a democratic country choose a type of sovereignty from their standpoint. Thus, there is a strong relationship between democracy and sovereignty. The link below describes as follows:
"Democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty. In a direct democracy, the public plays an active role in shaping and deciding policy. Representative democracy permits a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty from the people to a legislative body or an executive (or to some combination of the legislature, executive and Judiciary). Many representative democracies provide limited direct democracy through referendum, initiative, and recall. Parliamentary sovereignty refers to a representative democracy where the parliament is ultimately sovereign and not the executive power nor the judiciary." (Section "Justifications")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"The fate of every democracy, of every government based on the sovereignty of the people, depends on the choices it makes between these opposite principles, absolute power on the one hand, and on the other the restraints of legality and the authority of tradition."
----- John Acton
Dear @Kayode, you are right, I would agree that sovereignty lies with the people! Political life requires that the political community be sovereign!
" Modern democratic government is inevitably linked to stateness. Without a state, there can be no citizenship; without citizenship, there can be no democracy.”
One may say that , for example, member countries of EU have lost a part of their sovereignty!
"That was an argument about the proper locus of sovereignty and the appropriate scale of the state. Politicians can sometimes be heard voicing such concerns in Europe today, but in scholarly and intellectual circles the predominant tendency is not to argue about where sovereignty should be lodged, but to call into question the concept of sovereignty; not to argue about how big the state should be, but to wonder about whether the era of the modern state is coming to an end...
Democracy without sovereignty? According to the classic modern doctrine of sovereignty, of course, it was regarded as impossible to maintain sovereignty in both a political union and its constituent parts. In contemporary language, one might say that the lodging of sovereignty was regarded as a kind of “zero-sum game.” ..."
http://www.hoover.org/research/sovereignty-and-democracy
In my numerous observations, I see many very clear relationship: THE MORE DEMOCRATY, THE LESS SOVEREIGNTY. My explanation is the following:
1. Most of countries in the world use American Democraty Model
2. Most countries in the world are under the American External Control
A good example can be modern Germany as the best democraty country in Europe. But in my understanding, Germany actually has a minimal sovereignty because of the 300 American bases on its territory. A simple proof of it could be the situation with refugees from Africa and Asia: Germany has the maximum number of refugees DESPITE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I want to ask: WHY?
A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers.
sovereignty is not dependent on democracy. people sovereignty (winning of election) was crushed by army in Pakistan, Egypt, Algiers etc, many times. On the other hand countries sovereignty has been ruined by army alliances.
Japan, South Korea, Germany and countries having widespread foreign troops are not sovereign. China has no democracy but have sovereignty.
Democracy and Democatization in Developing Countries
"In this report I follow Beetham (1993:55) and make a distinction between the concept of democracy and theories of democracy. The concept of democracy, in its simplest form, can be defined using the two Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule) that combine to make the word democracy, meaning “rule by the people”. This is the classical idea of democracy. Beetham elaborates this concept as a “mode of decision-making about collectively binding rules and policies over which the people exercise control, and the most democratic arrangement to be that where all members of the collective enjoy effective equal rights to take part in such decision making directly - one, that is to say, which realizes to the greatest conceivable degree the principles of popular control and equality in its exercise...”. Theories of democracy attempt to make this basic concept operational by prescribing how democracy might be realized, in what institutional form, and the content of democracy. As regards these issues there is no general agreement. I will briefly describe the basic differences in terms of three issues. One is the debate whether democracy should be extended beyond the political sphere to include the social and economic spheres. The second is the question of the adequacy of a theory of democracy that addresses only the procedural or input side of the political process ignoring the output side. The third is the question whether there is one generalizable model of democracy that fits every society."
By: S.W.R. de A. Samarasinghe
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ihsg/publications/pdf/No-7-1.PDF
Democracy is a system of government in which the location of sovereignty resides in the people hands. Rousseau concept of popular sovereignty can be referred to understand in detail. As, we saw in authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorships forms of government., people were not involved in the decision-making but in a democratic country people were directly or indirectly involved. So, sovereign power or sovereignty is diffuse in a democracy government while in others it was consolidated.
Little while ago , on the same platform ,we discussed about the definition of democracy, which is nothing but the kind of governance , governed by the people , for the people and from the people through freedom of expression etc...etc... Such democracy is expected to safeguard of soverignity of a countery. And , therefore democracy and soverignity have a strong dependence on each other.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
“In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?”
---- Saint Augustine (Ancient Roman Christian Theologian and Bishop of Hippo from 396 to 430. One of the Latin Fathers of the Church. 354-430)
Democracy serves sovereignty better than any other form of government . History of democracy reveals these facts .
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"Democracy must be built through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation."
----- Atifete Jahjaga
Democracy is --- a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
Sovereignty is --- the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of “sovereignty”, historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.
http://www.bitmorecomplicated.com/eurows-democracy-versus-sovereignty/
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"The fate of every democracy, of every government based on the sovereignty of the people, depends on the choices it makes between these opposite principles, absolute power on the one hand, and on the other the restraints of legality and the authority of tradition."
---- John Acton
In a !idealistic world governed by the good, the beauty and he wise there is no difference.
All people will be happy, work together and have fun.
By definition in a democratic country sovereingnty lies in the people. In practice, this depends on the level of equality.
By definition in a democratic country sovereingnty lies in the people. In practice, this depends on the level of equality.
In a democracy, sovereignty is granted to the government by the people and actions are carried out by the government in their name. But countries can be seen to give over some of their ability to act independently to their financial creditors – the added finance available to the country being for the general benefit of the people of the nation.
So few states are democratic, since most governments are beholden to corporations, mines, and the military . The Nordics stand out as real democracies - they can get rid of a self serving PM
Dear Kayode,
Question of what is meant by sovereignty or what is Non-sovereignty.
Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. So is Non-sovereignty heteronomy.
Only free sovereign states can guarantee democracy for their peoples.
All best wishes
Michael Lersow
A democracy is where the sovereignty is in the hands of the people for the people and by the people as a whole. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the entire group of people. In a republic the sovereignty is in each one of the people. It only takes one to keep the idea of self-government alive.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
The purpose of the United Nations should be to protect the essential sovereignty of nations, large and small.
------ Nikita Khrushchev
The correct democracy based on a peaceful exchange of the middle can enhance the independence of the country. And here I said this could be because it depends on the people of the players. The independence of the country, people need access completely independent and non- belonging to the intelligence service state to state power. Otherwise the , democracy will be a commendable job on the people and the state upon the arrival of traitors and spies to the judgment and this is possible if any. Also, the arrival of groups to control the government and do not believe in democracy and the peaceful exchange of power will cause a lot of problems for the stat.
Regards
Yes Kayode Asaju certainly there is 'relationship between democracy and sovereignty of a country'.
As mentioned by César Rodrigues the 'sovereignty lies in the people' to give the power/authority to rule particular party/ies of the country/people. Brenda Jacono explained 'the authority of a state to governing itself' so we can reconcile how both democracy and sovereignty co-exist. Most of the colleagues explained the facts.
Clearly sovereignty can be shared in a democracy- cf the Brexit vote in 3 days! Similarly the UN does not take issue with non sovereign status of overseas territories provided there is a freely ministered referendum. That said, somewhat illogically one or two of these only are inscribed on a UN list of overseas that are supposed to become sovereign sometime. What if New Caledonia says no thanks in its 2018 referendum? Thus the matter is complex. As the EU does not permit autocratic regimes in its member states Austria narrowly missed being suspended recently. The UN does not contest the part shared sovereignty of EU states, whether mainland or overseas bits; nor does it support the non state status of nations, eg the Kurds.
There are concepts that sit alongside democracy, such as the rule of law and moral behaviour codes which require the honouring of commitments undertaken.
While the United Nations requires only that a State is sovereign by having effective and independent government within a defined territory, modern states are – needless to say – a bit more complicated than that.
In a democracy, sovereignty is granted to the government by the people and actions are carried out by the government in their name.
http://www.bitmorecomplicated.com/eurows-democracy-versus-sovereignty/
Democracy is supremacy of people & that is why we all know that Democracy is the government of the people ,by the people ,& for the people .The party who has with the maximum number of elected members they obviously firm the government & also the opposite parties play equally important part to control & guideline of the action of the government that is the parliament .
We cannot separate sovereignty from the function of parliament which is the supreme authority to run the government . It is in this line that we cannot avoid sovereignty as it is the power of also highest authority & that is why it is confirm as Sovereignty of parliament .
This is my personal opinion
In my view, a practical democracy consists of a government made up of civil SERVANTS, and elected officials, who work for the people, to further the people's interests. So by extension, sovereignty of that country is the people's sovereignty.
But it seems conceivable that other forms of government, for instance ruled by an appointed elite, can also claim sovereignty within their borders. It might seem less "legitimate" to people used to a more democratic form of government, but I don't see sovereignty per se as depending on democracy.
For the motto "democracy is by the people, for the people" books after books are written and are opened to all. The (real) democracy and sovereignty may be related to each other in a land called a country.
The ambiguity remaining in the definition of democracy renders the people of a country not to know how to practice it. If one examine almost all the sovereign lands so-called as countries, would find all democratic, whereas that may not be true in a comparative study.
True republicanism is the sovereignty of the people. There are natural and imprescriptible rights which an entire nation has no right to violate.
---Marquis de Lafayette
Democracy and sovereignty are separate concepts. If we want to test any relationships between them, this can be a good research to conduct.
There is no direct correlation.
Sovereignty was instituted in the Treaty of Westphalia, in 1648, and was not concerned with democracy but the prevention of one or more states interfering with the workings of another state (there were no permanent, widely recognized boundaries demarcating "states" up to that period because of constant warfare and political turmoil destroying and/or moving or absorbing areas of control). This "impermanence" was the primary driving concern for a more stable inter-European, or area, zone in which statecraft and economic activity could operate relatively undisturbed by war and usurpation--so, Westphalia was essentially driven by common self interest and the thirty-year war leading up to its signing.
Another example of no relation between democracy and sovereignty was the formation of most of the states in Africa, south of the Sahel, in the 1960s. None was a democracy, and today, fifty years later, there is still no truly working democracy among them. That is to say, those many states became sovereign simply by declaring themselves independent entities with constitutions and borders. The United Nations charter (CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES, Article 2) recognizes such entities as sovereign and thus valorizes them among the other sovereign countries, without demanding or specifying any particular political order.
The ICC (International Criminal Court), as well, directs that criminal behavior within a state be prosecuted by the appropriate legal entity in the state in which the behavior occurs, as it is primarily a sovereign question, regardless of political order.
Hope this helps,
Stephen
North Korea is sovereign, Saudi too, without being democratic, and there are many such. Many EU overseas territories are sovereign in most respects and are democratic ie self governing , mostly ( some different laws regarding eg homosexuality, and in Pitcairn for example the UK may intervene.) I agree w Stephen- no link between the two. Anyhow how define democracy? Peoples Republics of this or that... And how define sovereignty, when a French PM tells New Caledonians they are independent (ie sovereign? ) because, after all, France no longer has a currency... both terms are semantic fuzzies.
I do agree that there is no relation between democracy and sovereignty. Sovereignty is supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community without any interference from outside sources or bodies. As defined by Seyed Mehdi Mohammadizadeh, Greek Democracy of small cities where all citizens used to participation does exist nowhere. In fact, present-day democracies are no more oligarchies of some kind in which few people with money power supported by vested interests rule over people. Their decisions are final whether people like them or not. In a way, it is considered that people have delegated their power of self-rule to them. In the same manner, people may delegate the power of self-rule to a person either king or dictator. It will not compromise the sovereignty of the state or the polity.
Dear Asuja
The more democracy within any country in the sense that the citizen is represented with a real representation in the government and parliament that any problems and ambitions for himself and his country is considering and taken out. Whenever the commitment of the citizen legitimacy of the government has increased and thus increasing the independence of the country and the government.
Regards
Article Sovereigntism as a vocation and profession: imperial roots, ...