This question interests me, once a modern democracy (by modern I mean with modern technology available) reaches 50 years, have they ever failed?
I classify failure as: the system of a democratic society where everyone votes being turned into one where a) you can’t vote for your rulers anymore b) you can vote but its very onesided (saddam is a perfect example of that).
A country going from a democracy to say, socialism does count, anarchy or lack thereof does not matter.
However if you examples include some interested tidbits, feel free to share them
Do democracies terminated by foreign invasion count? The French Third Republic lasted from the early 1870’s until the Nazi invasion in 1940. It was subject to a lot of “political instability”, but as far as I know this was always of the “ruling party loses its majority in the legislature and new elections are called” variety, rather than the “army officers seize the capital and proclaim a new Committee of National Salvation” type of instability.
Chile seems to have been a reasonably functional democracy from about 1932 until Pinochet’s coup in 1973. Of course that’s only 41 years.
A few marginal examples come to mind (marginal mainly because historically when everyone had a vote ‘everyone’ usually meant ‘every property-owning male’ or an even more restricted group):
Wasn’t Greece a (turbulent) democracy (constitutional monarchy/republic) from 1864 (constitution) to 1936 (Metaxas dictatorship)?
some instances from German history:
a) the imperial cities that were virtually independent city-states (dominated by guids and rich people) until mediatisation in the 1803 Reichsdeputationshauptschluss
b) (marginal because medieval): the Dithmarschen peasant republic in Schleswig-Holstein, 1227 (de facto independance)-1447 (constitution)-1559 (Danish crown takes over)
c) the city-states of Bremen and Hamburg, with republican (oligarchic) government from the middle ages until 1933.
OK, you gotta draw me a more specific line-in-the-sand here. Are we talking steampower/railroads/telegraph, or are we talking Radio/TV/Air Travel/Photocopiers?
Clarification: you seem to be mixing universal suffrage and free elections in this statement, but seem to emphasize free elections. Many long-established constitutional systems had free elections long before they had universal suffrage.
Excuse me? You can be democratic (by your definition of free elections) and socialist. Really.
Turkey “fails” in a sense every twenty years or so- the Islamists win the elections, start restricting individual freedoms and turning Shari’a into the law of the land, until the military steps in and takes power- and turns it back over to the civilian government as soon as the islamists are out. Fascinating process.
The same thing happens every now and again in Pakistan. General Ayub Khan assumed control of the state in the sixties (ostensibly to eradicate the corruption that had overtaken the system) and General Pervez Musharraf did it in the nineties.
Actually, it seems likely that Switzerland wouldn’t count under the OP’s requirements. In fact, it illustrates some of the problems I see with the question. American style democracy isn’t the only valid democracy - as (e.g.) west European and Asian socialist democracies can attest.
Despite its democratic history and traditions, women couldn’t vote vote in all cantons until the 1970s. (IIRC, the law was passed in 1971, but I don’t recall when it went into full operation) Moreover, many suffrage organizations don’t list it as having “universal suffrage” on a national scale until a package of voting reforms in 1990 [probably because they established a uniform national voting age (18), but possibly because of adjustments in citizenship/voting rules – e.g. AFAIK being born in Switzerland still doesn’t automatically entitle one to Swiss citizenship.]
I certainly don’t mean to imply that Switzerland, or any of its cantons are or were repressive, backward or undemocratic. I happen to love Switzerland. I’ve lived in several countries, and I think Switzerland would be my first choice if I ever had to leave the US.
The “holdout” regions were, if anything, an expression of local democracy. It may sound odd to many of us, but I’ve spoken to Swiss women who simply didn’t want the vote, or later property reforms [ending the law that major property belonged to the (male) head of household]. They felt that such issues were best negotiated inside the family, and the measures were only passed to appease urban activists and foreigners. Some women’s groups even campaigned against it. Twelve years earlier, women’s suffrage had been defeated 2-1.
“Democracy” wouldn’t mean much if we could tell people what to believe. The national government was reluctant to impose new standards on local gov’ts.
Modern technology would be any means of mass communication, probably dating back to the 18th Century.
Everyone voting means obviously males voting since no females voted until the 20th Century, but the sense that it didnt matter where you lived, one man = one vote.
Im aware of that, but a change in system that removes elections IS considered under this heading, whether its peaceful or not. That was my point, I couldnt think of anything else
You can be democratic (by your definition of free elections) and socialist. Really.