The concept of democracy is simple and straightforward - development of individuals.Now, development has its own classifications and modes to achieve. Individuals can also be classified as minorities, native, immigrant, etc. Since, each individual has different socio-economic conditions, religious and cultural beliefs, geographical hindrances. Democracy recognises it and provides an EQUITY in opportunities for the deprived class. Dr. Ambedkar,s view and further explain the concept of democracy. He says that democracy is a manifestation of development of citizens having equality, liberty and fraternity in the core of the MEANS to achieve an END i.e. development. He makes a citizens upliftment at the centre of democracy.

for ex..

Iraq isn’t a democracy, and neither is the USA. Recall that in a democracy, everyone votes on everything. In anything other than a tiny, isolated population, this becomes unworkable, because while spending every day debating and voting, the water stops, the electricity cuts off, the trash overflows and the crops don’t get planted. If you have heard the phrase “exporting democracy” and believed it, you have been sadly misinformed.

Some countries have varying degrees of democratic voting methods to elect representatives to operate their governments; these are usually called republics. However, the key to making a republic work is for citizens to have respect for each other and for the honesty of a republican system. If citizens feel greater affinity for their tribes, ethnicities, castes or religious sects than to their republic, the republic will not last.

Dunno. Its all greek to me

I agree with the concept and accept that their are contradictions but if you explore other basic principles of democracy, you will realize that they complement each other, I wish to share my understanding as follows:

In democracy the governance of the people is decided by casting votes which translates to majority rules even if the issues they are voting for are not relevant or beneficial to the entire society and the minority are correct, this brings the other aspect of democracy where there is necessity of compromise which is a process in which democracy reaches reasonable agreement fairly without discarding an idea.@ Muralidhar Kovvali

I'm not quite sure that the premise is sound. Democracy is merely majority rule. It's liberal-democracy that imposes rights limits on that type of rule. Without the liberal element democracy would be vile and unbearable. As we're finding out (once again) with the rise of populism. Never forget that Hitler was democratically elected.

Christopher NOCK

Democracy, developed in ancient Greece, and perfected in Athens, was a form of government that was remarkably stable, just, and popular--lasting nearly 200 years until the patron of Artistotle (King Philip of the Macedonians) conquered Athens and forcibly ended their way of life... shortly thereafter, Alexander (Aristotle's student and Philip's son) went on to conquer the rest of the known world. Democracy would have continued were it not for the external military might of the Macedonians.

The word democracy literally means people-power (demos-kratia). With "demos" the Greeks referred to the poor--the peasants and the artisans who did not own large estates or slaves to work those estates. The territory of Attica was split into a number of small territorial units called "demes" (which was the word previously used to pejoratively refer only to the rural, impoverished areas of Attica). However, with the instauration of the democratic government, all of Attica was divided into demes, the smallest geographical and political unit of the polis... the local district.... The entire territory, in turn, was divided into three regions----the coast; the central, urbanized region; and the interior. While each deme was the most basic political unit, and would hold their own assemblies to discuss the decisions to be taken at the city-wide Assembly, the demes were combined into intermediate political units consisting of one deme from the interior, one deme from the coast, and one deme from the urban center, none of which could be adjacent to another. This unit of three demes which were geographically isolated from each other would meet prior to the city-wide Assembly, after the local demes had already discussed matters amongst themselves. The scrambling up of the three demes released the poor peasants from the coercion of the local oligarch who lived nearby, thereby undermining the domination of the oligarchs over the peasants who tilled the fields nearby their estate.

That's perhaps all very boring. The important thing about the democratic form of government in Athens was that the institutions were constantly evolving, always with the objective of ensuring that the "demos" were not dominated by the wealthy oligarchs who had abused their power for centuries. Elections were considered a fundamentally oligarchical form of selecting representatives. Elections are designed to choose the those rulers that appear to be, that seem to be, "the best"---which, as it turns out, time and time again, are the wealthy. Not because they actually are "the best" at governance, at making decisions of justice, or at executing the will of the people. To the contrary, the wealthy have, throughout history, used their money to gain access to political power, and then to further enrich themselves and their associates. The same principle applies today. Who wins national elections? Those persons who are wealthy, well-connected, clever at presenting themselves as "the best" ruler, and able to spend a significant amount of money on propaganda, whether on television, radio, or social media.

The democratic way of choosing representatives was sortition--lottery--whoever was interested in serving as a magistrate would put their name in the lottery machine, and if selected, they would serve for a year, carrying out the bureaucratic functions of the state. By randomly selecting these magistrates, elite actors could not know in advance who would be in a position of authority, and thus would not know who to bribe. Because the term was only for one year, the elites did not have enough time to develop the kinds of corrupt relationships that pervade modern forms of government wherein corporate actors constantly buy favors from politicians in the form of campaign contributions or outright bribery. Because the term of the magistrates was only for one year, the magistrates were unable to develop a mastery of the institutions and insulate themselves as a political elite which then could extort the wealthy class (as was the case with many of the leftist vanguard parties of the early twentieth century).

The Assembly, however, was generally considered the dominant political body. Representation in the Assembly was neither representation by sortition nor representation by election. Participation in the Assembly implied a form representation perhaps best described as self-selective representation (whoever chooses to show up on the day of the Assembly represents the entire city and thus selects themselves as representatives).

But although the Assembly was the sovereign body that issued all the decrees (which the magistrates merely carried out), in the last hundred years of the Athenian democracy, the democratic court increasingly gained more authority, preventing any excesses of the Assembly (for instance, if a large portion of the population was away at war when the Assembly was held, the voting results would not properly represent the polis as a whole). The courts had the authority to overturn any decree of the assembly if they found that it did not cohere with the foundational laws of the polis. Each court would be composed of between 200-500 judges-jurors (there was no distinction between these two roles), depending on the case being tried. Most days out of the year, Athenians (especially retired Athenians, apparently) would line up at the courthouse and enter the selective process. Through an intricate process of sortition, using a machine with various tubes and balls and cubes, all the jurors-judges required for the day were selected at random. Because the majority of the population was of the working class----simple peasants from the countryside and artisans from the city----the majority of every jury would be composed of the class that constituted the majority of the population, the poor. Because these juries were chosen at random each morning, the wealthy elites bringing charges against each other or challenging some ruling of the Assembly, were unable to bribe the judges. This is quite distinct from current judicial systems, where elected elites appoint judges without even the formality of a referendum... and these judges are often on the bench for life (supposedly to insulate them from political turmoil). In fact, they are completely insulated from popular pressure, live their lives in a bubble of wealthy politicians, businessmen, and lobbyists, and regularly rule against the majority opinion of populations around the world. The Athenians gave more power to the judiciary, but the judiciary was characterized by demos-kratia, [poor]people-power.

Today, we are so far from that ideal that the term "democracy" doesn't even make sense when speaking about our political system. The modern state form evolved from the European monarchies, on the one hand, and the militaristic colonial goverments on the other. In England there was the King, and the House of Lords, who competed amongst themselves, without much in the way of concern for the poor--that is, until elections were implemented and they were forced to appear as if, to seem as if, they were "the best" rulers. Just because we are now granted the wonderful privilege of selecting which scoundrels among the wealthy elite will be the rulers for four or five or six years, it does not mean that we have ever even approached a government that would be democratic, that would institute people-power and prevent the domination of political institutions by the wealthy elite.

Sorition, selection by lottery, may seem like a dangerous proposition, but that is because our political systems evolved from monarchies and militaristic client states (in the colonies), both of which were ruled by a strong-man, who, in some cases had checks on his power from other strong-men. I don't think we should randomly select the president. I think that the very fact that modern states concentrate so much power in the hands of so few people, and that the election system ensures that those in power are wealthy elites, is fundamentally un-democratic. We need to reform our institutions in ways that prevent them from being dominated by the rich and powerful. How do we do that? I don't know. It seems that "Participatory Budgeting" is a very small step in that direction... but we have a lot of work to do.

Democracy is rule by the people. Since the people are not likely to agree 100%, it is the majority which must make the rules. The only alternative is minority rule. The same must apply to deciding what is a “right” – majority agreement.

Hitler (like Trump) did not have a majority. His absolute power was not acquired because of any lack of rights. It was granted via a clause in the constitution allowing the president to award it. (The people were not asked.)

In Hungary the government was elected by a big majority (in 2010 I think) in a fair election. It is now is well down the road to tyranny. Rights were there but the government has since been eroding those rights. It has distorted the electoral system to ensure it will always win cancelling the right of the people to rule, politicised the courts undermining the right to justice, and (above all perhaps) it controls the media curbing the right to free speech. If only the majority were allowed to rule!

in my opinion democracy is competing between two or multi parties to reach power. also these parties have organization and strategy. in addition democracy have structural traits such professional groups, bureaucracy , public sphere , election system(voting) and etc .

Democracy is for the people, by the people and of the people

Democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.

Regards

Thank you so much for all your answers .

With different angle, I will through my opinion.

Democracy is worst system but nothing better than this. Now a days Democracy remains in book and politicians mouth. What decides by the great power to other nation is democracy!!

Understanding democracy varies from a society into another because some societies misuse and exploit it to cause chaos and uproars that lead to lose of stability and affect the resolution of national security. In the advanced societies, democracy comes to mean a modern way of life in dignity and expressing their opinions freely and without touching others freedoms and liberties.

The concept of democracy is simple and straightforward - development of individuals.Now, development has its own classifications and modes to achieve. Individuals can also be classified as minorities, native, immigrant, etc. Since, each individual has different socio-economic conditions, religious and cultural beliefs, geographical hindrances. Democracy recognises it and provides an EQUITY in opportunities for the deprived class. Dr. Ambedkar,s view and further explain the concept of democracy. He says that democracy is a manifestation of development of citizens having equality, liberty and fraternity in the core of the MEANS to achieve an END i.e. development. He makes a citizens upliftment at the centre of democracy.

for ex..

Iraq isn’t a democracy, and neither is the USA. Recall that in a democracy, everyone votes on everything. In anything other than a tiny, isolated population, this becomes unworkable, because while spending every day debating and voting, the water stops, the electricity cuts off, the trash overflows and the crops don’t get planted. If you have heard the phrase “exporting democracy” and believed it, you have been sadly misinformed.

Some countries have varying degrees of democratic voting methods to elect representatives to operate their governments; these are usually called republics. However, the key to making a republic work is for citizens to have respect for each other and for the honesty of a republican system. If citizens feel greater affinity for their tribes, ethnicities, castes or religious sects than to their republic, the republic will not last.

The concept of democracy: The origin of the word democracy to ancient Greek, ancient Greece knew the forms of democratic governance, which expressed the rule of the people for himself through the various councils, and the word democracy consists of two parts, (Demos) and the meaning of the general people or the people, and (Kratia) , So the meaning of this word is the rule of the people.

Democracy is a word derived from Greek origin. It means the rule of the people for itself. Democracy is a distinct social system on which the society walks and believes. Democracy refers to a particular moral and political culture, which reflects a number of concepts concerning the need for periodic and peaceful rotation of power.

There are two aspects for the democracy, the first one is ideological which talks about the authority of the individual and one else to empower his choice in governing; the second one is technical is related to follow the choice of the majority in governing. The first aspect has created a divergence between people but the seconde aspect make always consensus.

Means the authority of the people.

Thanks for all their answers and best regards.

Democracy is represented for public as a certain peak of governance development. Everyone knows that it is not. Many people vote not for the best, but against the worst. Politicians most often do not follow the wishes of voters (which are also very selfish), but on the contrary, they convince voters (with the assistance of mass media) of the correctness of their “program”. In practice, this turns into a dictatorship of two, or even one party (examples are known to all). But even where there are many political parties, everything is not so simple. For example, three parties received 48, 45 and 7 percent of the votes, respectively. As result, second and third join the coalition and form the government. Formally, they have the right to this, because together received 52 percent of the votes. But, as a result, the prerequisite for the stability of the coalition is reverent following to the requirements of the third party, which, strictly speaking, is marginal and represents essentially nobody (to be exact, 7% of those who took part in the election). This is precisely the situation that realized during several electoral cycles in one of the countries. Is this the best arrangement of the state? "The tail wagging the dog?".

Following.

I agree with Reggad's answer!

Democracy is when it would function with all its ideals and characteristics without those attributes democracy looks undemocratic. If you want to understand any democracy then you have to understand that whether that state is following all required criterias and parameters which are necessary to be called a democratic state. Democracy without democratic ideals is simply a bucket without flowers.....

Equality before the law.

Democracy would be a clearer concept if its name were changed to COMMERCIAL-DEMOCRACY as all variations of democratic/republican government emerge as the political veneer covering a commercial society.

Why is this so?

This is so because as the bulk of human activity, production and trade, in a society begins to be performed between people, we are all pushed to tolerate the other traders. The more self-sufficient the people are in a culture, the more prejudiced and intolerant we can be and still survive.

But if our livelihood depends on us getting along with the next person who walks through our shop door, we avoid conflict. If I need his business I do not inquire into his political stand or even his race or sex.

There is a simple reason why social equality is most demonstrated in commercial societies.

The more commercial the society the more EQUAL its people tend to be.

The last thing to change is the form of government.

So production and trade and commercialism developed in the trading port cities of Athens in ancient Greece, Republican Rome, the Italian Maritime Republics, and England.

As the people became DEMOCRATIC and EQUAL beneath the level of government they eventually change their form of governance and throw off their kings and install a democracy.

Democracy: Where votes buy politicians just as dollars buy goods in the marketplace.