If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on history. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality history paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in history, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your history paper at affordable prices
The theory of democracy is commonly thought to date back at least to ancient Greek times - but it has
overcomed a series of historical events that transformed it, giving it a more complete definition and
becoming the dominant form of political organisation during the 20th century.The word "democracy"
comes from the Greek words demos (meaning people) and kratos (meaning rule). By putting these twoOrder Custom history paper
words together it can be derived that democracy means "government by the people".In ademocratic
systems citizens elect officials to structure political decisions, formulate laws, and administer
programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex
public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy
that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.In the dictionary definition,
democracy is defined as "government in which the poeple hold the ruling power either directly or
through elected representatives; rule by the ruled " ( Guralnik and Neufeldt, 366).By far, amidst
numerous definitions and interpretations regarding democracy, President Lincoln has given us
perhaps the best-known definition of democracy in American history. By "government of
the people, by the people, and for the people," he meant, the essentials of democratic
government are applicable to all nations that aspire to a democratic society.
Protecting minority rights: If by "democracy" we mean rule by the majority, then one of the
great problems in a democracy is how minorities are treated. By "minorities" we do not mean
people who voted against the winning party, but rather those who are indelibly different from the
majority by reasons of race, religion, or ethnicity. In the United States, the great problem has been
that of race; it took a bloody civil war to free black slaves, and then another century before people
of color could count on free exercise of their constitutional rights. The problem of racial equality
is one that the United States is still wrestling with today. But this is part of the evolutionary
nature of democracy, the drive to become more inclusive and to grant to those who are different
from the majority not only protection against persecution but the opportunity to participate as full
and equal citizens. Examples of nations treating their minorities in a bloody and horrible manner
are numerous, and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews is only the most vivid illustration. But no
society can aspire to call itself democratic if it systematically excludes specific groups from the full
protection of the laws.
By Melvin I. Urofsky
"...that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not
vanish from this earth."
-- President Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg Address, 1863
Speaking at the dedication of a national cemetery at Gettysburg in the midst of a great
civil war fought to preserve the United States as a country, President Lincoln gave us in his
ringing conclusion perhaps the best-known definition of democracy in American history. By
"government of the people, by the people, and for the people," he meant, the essentials of
democratic government he so well described are applicable to all nations that aspire to a
democratic society.
Democracy is hard, perhaps the most complex and difficult of all forms of government. It is
filled with tensions and contradictions, and requires that its members labor diligently to
make it work. Democracy is not designed for efficiency, but for accountability; a
democratic government may not be able to act as quickly as a dictatorship, but once
committed to a course of action it can draw upon deep wellsprings of popular support.
Democracy, certainly in its American form, is never a finished product, but is always
evolving. The outer forms of government in the United States have altered little in two
centuries, but once we look past the surface we discover great changes. Yet, most
Americans believe -- and rightly so -- that the basic principles underlying their government
derive directly from notions first enunciated by the framers of the Constitution in 1787.
In these papers, we have tried to explicate what some of those principles are, indicating a
little of their historical development and explaining why they are important to the workings
of government in the United States in particular as well as democracy in general. Because
any democracy is an evolving system, the papers also indicate some shortcomings of the
U.S. governmental system, and how the nation has tried to address those problems. No
one claims that the American model, as successful as it has been for the United States, is
the model that all democracies should follow. Each nation must fashion a government out
of its own culture and history. But these essays do identify fundamental principles that, in
one form or another, must be present in all democracies. The exact manner in which laws
are made, for example, can vary widely, but no matter what the forms, they must obey
the root principle that the citizenry has to be involved in the process and feel ownership of
those laws.
What are these root principles? We have identified 11 that we believe are key to
understanding how democracy has evolved and how it operates in the United States.
Constitutionalism: Law-making must take place within certain parameters; there must
be approved methods for laws to be made and to be changed, and certain areas -- namely
the rights of individuals -- must be off limits to the whims of majority rule. A constitution
is a law, but at the same time it is much more than that. It is the organic document of a
government, laying out the powers of the different branches as well as the limits on
governmental authority. A key feature of constitutionalism is that this basic framework
cannot easily be changed because of the wishes of a transient majority. It requires the
consent of the governed expressed in a clear and unambiguous manner. In the United
States, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1787. The framers made
the amendment process difficult but not impossible. Most of the amendments have
extended democracy by enlarging individual rights and wiping away differences based on
race or gender. None of these amendments were lightly undertaken, and when adopted, all
had the support of a great majority of the people.
Democratic Elections: No matter how well designed a government is, it cannot be
considered democratic unless the officials who head that government are freely elected by
the citizens in a manner perceived to be open and fair to all. The mechanism of an election
may vary, but the essentials are the same for all democratic societies: access of all
qualified citizens to the ballot, protection of the individual against undue influence in the
casting of the ballot, and an open and honest counting of the votes. Because large-scale
balloting is always subject to errors and fraud, care must be taken to avoid these as much
as possible, so that if there is a problem or a close election -- as happened in the 2000
presidential election in the United States -- the people will understand that despite the
difficulty, the results can still be accepted as binding upon them.
Federalism, State and Local Governments: The United States is unique in its federal
system of government, in which power and authority are shared and exercised by national,
state, and local governments. But if the model is not suited to other nations, there are still
lessons to be learned. The further government is from the people, the less effective it is
and the less it is trusted. By having local and state governments, Americans can see some
of their elected officials up close. They can tie policies and programs directly to the men
and women who enacted them and who implement them. In addition, decentralization of
authority makes it all that much harder to effect an illegitimate takeover of the
government. The principle that democracies ought to decentralize power and responsibility
may not matter much in a small and relatively homogeneous country, but it can be an
important safeguard in large and heterogeneous nations.
Creation of law: History records that formal laws have been made by mankind for five
millennia, but the methods different societies have used to make the rules under which
they will live have varied enormously, from edicts by god-kings to majority vote at village
meetings. In the United States, law is made at many levels, from local town councils, on
up through state legislatures, to the U.S. Congress. But at all these levels, there is a large
input from the citizenry, either directly or indirectly. Law-making bodies recognize that
they are responsible to their constituents, and if they do not legislate in the people's best
interests, they will face defeat at the next election. The key to democratic law-making is
not the mechanism or even the forum in which it takes place, but the sense of
accountability to the citizenry and the need to recognize the wishes of the people.
An independent judiciary: Alexander Hamilton remarked in The Federalist in 1788-89
that the courts, being without the powers of either sword or purse, would be "the least
dangerous branch" of the government. Yet courts can be very powerful in a democracy,
and in many ways are the operating arm through which constitutional constraints are
interpreted and enforced. In the United States, the courts may declare acts of Congress
and of state legislatures invalid because they conflict with the Constitution, and may enjoin
presidential actions on similar grounds. The greatest defender of individual rights in the
United States has been the court system; this is made possible because most judges have
life tenure and can focus on legal issues without the distraction of politics. While not all
constitutional courts are the same, there must be a body that has the authority to
determine what the Constitution says, and when different branches of government have
exceeded their powers.
Powers of the presidency: All modern societies must have a chief executive able to
carry out the responsibilities of government, from the simple administration of a program
to directing the armed forces to defending the nation in wartime. But a fine line must be
drawn between giving the executive sufficient powers to do the job and, at the same time,
limiting that authority to prevent a dictatorship. In the United States, the Constitution has
drawn clear lines around the powers of the president, and while the office is one of the
strongest in the world, its strength derives from consent of the governed and the ability of
the occupant of the White House to work well with the other branches of government. Here
again, the actual organization of the chief executive's office is not the issue, but rather the
constraints imposed upon that office by such principles as "separation of powers." In a
democracy, a president must rule through his or her political skills, establishing a
framework of cooperation with the legislature and above all with the people. At the same
time, the citizenry must feel secure that constitutional constraints ensure that the
president or prime minister is always the servant, and not the master, of the people.
Role of a free media: Closely tied to the public's right to know are a free media --
newspapers, radio and television networks -- that can investigate the workings of
government and report on them without fear of prosecution. English common law made
any criticism of the king (and by extension the entire government) a crime known as
seditious libel. The United States eventually did away with this crime, and in its place
created a theory of the press that has served democracy well. In a complex state, the
individual citizen may not be able to leave work to go watch trials, sit in on legislative
debates, or investigate how a government program works. But the press is the surrogate
of the citizen, reporting back through print and broadcast media what it has found so that
the citizenry can act on that knowledge. In a democracy, the people rely on the press to
ferret out corruption, to expose the maladministration of justice or the inefficient and
ineffective workings of a government body. No country can be free without a free press,
and one sign of any dictatorship is the silencing of the media.
Role of interest groups: In the 18th century, and in fact well into the 19th, law-making
represented primarily a dialogue between the voters and their elected representatives in
Congress or in state and local governments. Because the population was smaller,
governmental programs more limited, and communications simpler, there was no need for
citizens to resort to mediating organizations for assistance in making their views known.
But, in the 20th century, society grew more complex, and the role of government
expanded. Now there are many issues that voters need to speak about, and in order to
make their voices heard on specific matters, citizens create lobby groups, groups
advocating public and private interests, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
devoted to single issues. There has been much internal criticism of this aspect of American
democracy, and some people claim that those interests with access to large sums of
money can make their voices better heard than those with fewer resources. There is a
certain truth to that criticism, but the fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of
these groups who help to educate the public and lawmakers about particular matters, and
in doing so they help many individual citizens of ordinary means get their views known to
their lawmakers in a complex age. With the age of the Internet upon us, the number of
voices will increase even more, and these NGOs will help to refine and focus citizen
interest in an effective manner.
Creation of law: History records that formal laws have been made by mankind for five millennia,
but the methods different societies have used to make the rules under which they will live have
varied enormously, from edicts by god-kings to majority vote at village meetings. In the United
States, law is made at many levels, from local town councils, on up through state legislatures, to
the U.S. Congress. But at all these levels, there is a large input from the citizenry, either directly
or indirectly. Law-making bodies recognize that they are responsible to their constituents, and if
they do not legislate in the people's best interests, they will face defeat at the next election. The
key to democratic law-making is not the mechanism or even the forum in which it takes place, but
the sense of accountability to the citizenry and the need to recognize the wishes of the people.
Constitutionalism: Law-making must take place within certain parameters; there must be
approved methods for laws to be made and to be changed, and certain areas -- namely the rights
of individuals -- must be off limits to the whims of majority rule. A constitution is a law, but at the
same time it is much more than that. It is the organic document of a government, laying out the
powers of the different branches as well as the limits on governmental authority. A key feature of
constitutionalism is that this basic framework cannot easily be changed because of the wishes of a
transient majority. It requires the consent of the governed expressed in a clear and unambiguous
manner. In the United States, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1787. The
framers made the amendment process difficult but not impossible. Most of the amendments have
extended democracy by enlarging individual rights and wiping away differences based on race or
gender. None of these amendments were lightly undertaken, and when adopted, all had the
support of a great majority of the people.
"The aim of every political constitution is...first to obtain for rulers, men who
possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common goal of
society."
-- James Madison
The Federalist, No. 57
Democratic Elections: No matter how well designed a government is, it cannot be considered
democratic unless the officials who head that government are freely elected by the citizens in a
manner perceived to be open and fair to all. The mechanism of an election may vary, but the
essentials are the same for all democratic societies: access of all qualified citizens to the ballot,
protection of the individual against undue influence in the casting of the ballot, and an open and
honest counting of the votes. Because large-scale balloting is always subject to errors and fraud,
care must be taken to avoid these as much as possible, so that if there is a problem or a close
election -- as happened in the 2000 presidential election in the United States -- the people will
understand that despite the difficulty, the results can still be accepted as binding upon them.
By determining peacefully those who shall govern and by bestowing legitimacy on the decisions
they make, elections provide answers to crucial questions faced by any political system. These
goals are more easily achieved when the characteristics of an electoral system encourage a widely
shared perception that elections are both free and fair. Factors encouraging this perception are a
franchise and an access to the ballot that are more inclusive than exclusive; an equality of votes so
that no vote counts more than another; and election outcomes determined by rules established in
advance, with minimal cheating and fraud in the casting and counting of votes. These standards
for free and fair elections have not been static over American political history. Their evolution has
reflected each generation's experience in grappling with the nature of political community, the
latitude of lawful dissent, representation, and electoral structure and administration.
Electoral structures and procedures
Electoral rules and practices may also contribute to, or detract from, a sense that elections are free
and fair. Consider voting impediments, vote counting, and campaign finance regulations.
One conspicuous fact about elections in the United States is the widespread phenomenon of
nonvoting. (Voting in the United States is voluntary, not legally required as it is in some
countries.) Even in high-visibility presidential elections, voter turnout in recent years has hovered
around 50 percent. That is, fully half the eligible voting population (almost all citizens over 17
years of age) does not vote. This rate contrasts with a turnout of about 65 percent -- a
modern-day high -- in the presidential election of 1960. Thus, when President Bill Clinton won
re-election in 1996 with 49 percent of the popular vote in an election in which the turnout was
only 49 percent, he was the choice of slightly less than one quarter of the eligible electorate.
What is responsible for this trend? Factors such as a decline in a sense of civic and community
obligation, voter apathy stemming from a perception that elections do not make a difference in
one's life, and an increase in the percentage of two-wage-earner households may depress turnout
-- as well as the sense in recent national elections that no great issues are at stake in a prosperous
time of peace.
It is also important to keep in mind that voting in the United States entails three different
decisions. Aside from deciding to vote and deciding for whom to vote, the prospective voter must
also have registered to vote. This requirement seems to impede voting because registration rolls
usually close weeks before the election itself. Moreover, because registration is done by state and
within states by counties, and within counties is organized by precincts, persons who have
recently relocated will almost always have to re-register or make sure that their existing
registration has been transferred. So the mobility of the American population suggests that there is
always a certain number of would-be voters who are kept from the polls because of registration
requirements. Whether systems for easier voter registration, as when one applies for or renews a
drivers license (the so-called "motor voter" plan), will improve turnout rates remains unclear.
In the counting of all ballots, legal safeguards have been developed over the years to minimize
error and to assure fairness. This is why the laws of all states provide for recounts in certain
instances and permit the initial apparent loser to contest the election. Otherwise, doubts about the
accuracy of the vote count may undermine public confidence in the integrity of elections and
subtract from the legitimacy of the declared winner. No better example exists than the extended
presidential election of 2000 that highlighted all too clearly problems that can arise in the usually
mundane process of counting votes.
Free and fair elections are essential in assuring the "consent of the governed," the bedrock of
democratic politics. They are at once both power- and legitimacy-conferring instruments, just as
unfair and dishonest elections may cast doubt on one's claim to office and diminish one's ability to
govern.
Few argue that electoral politics in the United States is perfect. Some of its features from time to
time have hindered, deflected, muted, or distorted the people's consent. Yet, for several reasons,
most Americans believe that overall their electoral system is fair and honest. First, with the
noticeable and instructive example of the conflicts leading to the Civil War nearly a century and a
half ago, elections in the United States operate effectively: By determining winners and losers,
they accomplish what elections are designed to do. Defeated candidates and their supporters
willingly, if not cheerfully, defer to the victors and acknowledge their right to rule. This is no
small achievement. Such acceptance presupposes a stable political system where ultimate values
and interests are rarely, if ever, at risk.
Second, the frequency of elections means that no party or faction within a party is guaranteed
permanency in office. Today's majority might be replaced by a much different majority tomorrow.
This is a key point of democratic theory: Majorities are in flux. Third, majorities may be transitory
because the electoral system protects the right to compete. An election without opportunity for
serious opposition is a hoax.
Finally, U.S. elections link voters with officeholders. The latter depend upon a majority of voters
to govern. The people therefore perceive elected officials as their agents, authorized to act on
their behalf. Elections in America have made public officials the servants of the people, rather than
people the servants of the government.
However one measures the progress in democratic politics that the United States has made, other
nations may well choose not to follow the American model in all its particulars. Some features of
electoral politics in the United States persist only as remnants of history. An American nation
getting under way in the 21st century would not select its chief executives through the Electoral
College. It might not choose to retain an equal vote for each state in the Senate. Other features,
such as a guarantee of a free press or popular election of members of Congress, would doubtless
remain. Nonetheless, lessons emerge from America's democratic experience that point to
characteristics that are probably essential to the maintenance of a stable democratic process
elsewhere.
First, access to the vote and the ballot should be widely available, with no vote worth more than
any other vote. To restrict the political community on the basis of gender, political beliefs,
ethnicity, or religion, for instance, undercuts a regime's legitimacy. An inclusive franchise, by
contrast, encourages all elements of a society to perceive a stake in the existing order because
each has a chance eventually to prevail.
Second, encouraging high turnouts of voters in elections should be a priority. Low voting
turnouts should be cause for concern, if not alarm. Not only may they result in election of officials
without the support of a majority of the eligible electorate, but they exaggerate the influence of
well-organized and intensely motivated interests.
Third, a high level of freedom for political speech is crucial to the democratic process. Restricting
lawful dissent not only inhibits electoral politics by stifling opponents, but repression of opinion
may drive dissidents from legitimate channels of political participation into violent means of
protest.
Fourth, elections and the system of representation must enable a majority of the people to control
the government, yet safeguards must be in place to prevent a majority from overwhelming and
destroying a minority. Nonetheless, arrangements that assign undue electoral weight to minority
interests may frustrate a central element of consent of the governed: legislation that efficiently
reflects the will of the majority. Otherwise, minority views displace those of the majority or so
cripple the decision-making process that the government becomes incapable of acting at all.
Fifth, because elections function effectively only if most people perceive them to be free and fair,
procedures must be in place to respond quickly to allegations of voting dishonesty. Without such
remedial devices, electoral politics may quickly be perceived as a fraud.
Finally, free and fair elections may prove difficult to maintain in a society marked by deep
cleavages among a large part of the population over the most vital questions. Sometimes the
health of a political system can be gauged by the issues that do not dominate a campaign and by
the propositions that never appear on any ballot.
"Democratic institutions are never done," observed Woodrow Wilson over a century ago. "They
are like living tissue -- always a-making. It is a strenuous thing, this living of the life of a free
people." Close scrutiny and probable change remain the order of the day. Awareness of the flaws
in an electoral system is as important as appreciation of its virtues.
Bush, Mark E. Does Redistricting Make a Difference? Partisan Representation and Electoral
Behavior (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993)
Chute, Marchette GaylordThe First Liberty: A History of the Right to Vote in America,
1619-1850 (Button, 1969)
Gillette,William The Right to Vote: Politics and Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment (Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1965)
Huntington,SamuelThe Third Wave: Democratization In The Late Twentieth Century
(University of Oklahoma Press, 1993)
Grofman, Lijphant, eds. Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences (Agathon Press,
1986)
Keysser, Alexander The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United
States (Basic Books, 2000)
Kirk, Harold PorterA History of Suffrage in the United States (AMS Press, 1971)
Rogers, Donald W.ed. Voting and the Spirit of American Democracy: Essays on the History of
Voting and Voting Rights in America (University of Illinois Press, 1992)
Please note that this sample paper on history is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on history, we are here to assist you.Yourpersuasive essay on history will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
