America has been democratic for 224 years, longer, than many countries in the world. But before that, it was ruled by British monarchs.
I wonder, is there a country which always was a democracy? If so, how old is it? For instance, a desert Pacific island, settled by “free” people and never claimed by any crown?
India is the world’s largest democracy. What is the world oldest? And what is the “oldest original” one?
The oldest surviving Parliament in the world is Iceland’s (the Althing, established in the 10th century), so I suppose they’ve got some claim.
IIRC, Norway had something akin to a Parliament around 900 A.D. or so. Don’t know if it was popularly-elected.
Iceland always claims to be the oldest. I imagine most of the countries governed by the Norse during that era operated pretty similarly.
Iceland’s Althing:
http://www.travelnet.is/about/history.htm#930 Establishment of the Althing
Don’t really know but found this by accident …
“The people of the Six Nations, also known by the French term, Iroquois [1] Confederacy, call themselves the Hau de no sau nee (ho dee noe sho nee) or People of the Longhouse. Located in the northeastern region of North America, originally the Six Nations was five and included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The sixth nation, the Tuscaroras, migrated into Iroquois country in the early eighteenth century. Together these peoples comprise the oldest living participatory democracy on earth. Their story, and governance truly based on the consent of the governed, contains a great deal of life-promoting intelligence for those of us not familiar with this area of American history. The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations. In our present day, we can benefit immensely, in our quest to establish anew a government truly dedicated to all life’s liberty and happiness much as has been practiced by the Six Nations for over 800 hundred years.”
– DD
Iceland looks like a better candidate to me, becase Norway started as kigdom in the 9th century by Harald I. Later it was a province of Denmark. It is a constitutional monarchy. Iceland was a part of Denmark, too. She never was a monarchy, though, but also was a part of Denmark at one time.
I wonder, if there is a consensus among historians, similar to that about India?
The difficulty with this question is one of definition. Most European monarchies in the Middle Ages had some form of representative assembly, but these were democratic only in the loosest sense of that term. The powers of those assemblies varied and it is debateable whether any medieval kingdom was a constitutional monarchy in the modern sense. In a few cases, these representative assemblies have survived to the present day, usually by becoming modern legislative assemblies elected by a popular franchise. Thus, a few modern Parliaments can claim to be very ancient, but it does not mean that they were always democratic. IIRC, it is the Icelandic Althing which, on that basis, is usually thought to be the oldest Parliament.
A case could be made for saying that the U.S.A. is the oldest surviving democracy of a recognisably modern sort, with elections conducted using a reasonably wide franchise having a real effect on policy. There are two caveats to this. The first is that an elastic interpretation of that same definition could grant the prize to the British Parliament. (I’m not seriously suggesting that Britain is the world’s oldest surviving democracy as the origins of the British Parliament are far less remarkable than many would like to believe - it’s a standard medieval representative assembly which did not really begin to adapt until the nineteenth century.) The other caveat is that there are plenty of examples of earlier European states which had had franchises as wide as the U.S. franchise was orginally defined. As I say, it all comes down to a matter of definition.
As APB points out, there’s a substantial problem of definition here.
In 1797, the franchise in the United States was restricted to white men with some amount of property.
If there was such a country today, would we characterise it as a democracy?
Did the U.S. only become a democracy with the passage of the 15th Amendment (1870), opening the franchise to all races, and the 19th Amendment (1920), opening the franchise to women?
My dictionary defines “democracy” as, “a system of government by the whole population, usu. through elected representatives” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Ninth Edition.)
Using this definition, and given that children and prisoners don’t have the right to vote, is there a democracy anywhere on this planet?
APB, you appear to be a historian or, at least, you know your cookies.
I understand the problem with the definition. If we include “formal” democracies, of all sorts, it would not be as interestig, as such cointries as former USSR with rubber-stamp, but formally “freely” elected" parliament, would be allowed to compete. On the other hand, I do not want to cut out slightly “imperfect” democracies, either. For instance, Iceland seems to be a good candidate as a champion. If you told me that no popular vote was introduced there till the 19th centuty and before that Althig was just an assembly of delegates sent by each village, I’ll accept this as a democracy. The fact that Iceland was never ruled by a monarch, is also impressive. She was under Danish rule for hundreds of years, and, therefore, was formally ruled by the the manarch. But she, AFAIAC, did not ask for Danish protection and was sort of dragged into the dependancy by force.
In your opinion (or in history’s opinion), was she a real colony, similar to America of the 18th century, ruled from afar, taxed heavily, etc., or was it more like modern Australia, completely independent but with British monarch as a formal head of state, or something in between, i.e. self-governed with seal and army in Denmark, a Danish monarch likeness on her postal stamp and a few herrings sent to Kopenhagen as token levy?
Unlike Pipeliner, I do not long for being governed by babies, criminals or loonies, or whatever his definition of democracy includes.
San Marino has been independent since the 4th century and a democratic republic since at least the 15th century. From the 12th century (if not earlier), it was ruled by a council representing the assembly of families. Their Constitution dating from 1600 provides for a parliament elected by all the citizens. Unlike Iceland, they never had even a whiff of monarchy in all this time. When Napoleon Buonaparte conquered Northern Italy, he preserved the independence of San Marino as an exemplar of the ideals of liberty he claimed to promote. Domestic voter turnout is 99%. Maybe San Marino gets the prize.
One might point out that, although they no longer exist as states, several Greek city-states had democratic governments well before 1 AD, and in many cases they were true democracies, that is, the people voted directly on issues, not on representatives to rule them. I can’t think of any place that worked under a democratic form of government before the Greeks, though someone else might be able to supply an example.
The age of the continuous democratic government of Iceland is considerably less than the time between the founding of the Althing and the present. Even the date given above is not really accurate, since the current government was first formed in 1944. It all depends on how you define terms.
Tris
We know the most about the Athenian city-state, which flourished in the 5th century BC. Though conquered by Sparta and transformed into an oligarchy, Athens quickly recovered, threw off the tyranny of the Thirty, and restored the democracy. The independent democratic history of Athens finally ended when it was conquered by Rome (in 196 BC or 143 BC, depending on whether you believe that Flamininus’ military victories in the First Macedonian War effectively conquered Athens.)
The Athenian democracy was direct. It is true that citizens, all free males, voted on every public issue and took turns serving in legislative and judicial assemblies, the boule and the ekklesia. Women, metics (resident aliens), and slaves were utterly disenfranchised. Though estimates vary widely, it is beyond dispute that they comprised the vast majority of the population.
I had an unfortunate and protracted argument with someone on soc.history.ancient who insisted that Athens was not a democracy because it did not conform with our modern standards. This is not an error I hope to see repeated here.
MR
The United States of America is not a democracy in the strictest sense. It is a “Constitutional Republic” that uses democratic/representative principles for deciding some things.
This is my ultimate goal, of course: to be governed by babies, criminals and loonies. I live in Canada, so I’m halfway there already.
peace: That wasn’t my definition of democracy; that was the dictionary’s. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the USA didn’t allow anyone under the age of 21 to vote until the late 1960s. This effectively meant that a person could be drafted into the armed forces, sent off to war, return to the US, get married, have a child, and still not be able to vote. This is hardly what I would call giving the vote to babies.
Also, I personally don’t have a big issue with giving the vote to people in prison. I mean honestly, someone busted for 1/2 oz of pot shouldn’t have the right to vote? A woman convicted of killing an abusive husband gives up her right to vote? IMO, that’s absurd.
I stand by my original question: if democracy is defined in the dictionary as “a system of government by the whole population,” and if large chunks of the population aren’t allowed to vote, is it a democracy? Or, to rephrase the question somewhat, how do you figure the USA has been a democracy for 224 years? As jti points out, American women got the vote in 1920 - how can you consider any country that forbids 50% of its population to vote a democracy?
I remember gojng to the Isle of Man for the celebration of the Millenium of its government - the Tynwald sometime around 1978 so this might be up among the front-runners.
Pipeliner, sorry. I just could not resist being a sarcastic @$$hole.
We all agree, that newborns should not vote. We can argue about “majority” age, draft age and voting age. Many old people, although not clinically mentally ill, could be somewhat confused, or unable to follow simple instructions and punch a hole in a voting card. Women and slaves were excluded: mentality and cutural standards were different then. BTW, AFAIK, the U.S. is one of the first countries with bi-sexual electorate: the French women were granted the right in 1960.
Of course, ancient Greece city-state democracy looks fairer to some extend (how a war is declared?), but impossible in a big country. The Swiss referendum system is probably the closest to “grass-root” democracy, but impractical and expensive. Proportionate representation seems to be a good idea, but, like everything else, requires proper implementation: look at FL and the orgy these lawyers have!
As to the criminals, you are putting apples and oranges in one basket. You seem to agree that “serious” felons should be excluded. "Someone busted for 1/2 oz of pot fualt is significant not as much as dealing with pot itself, it is disregard for the law. He’s flaunting his disrespect for the society. OK. I’m not going to kill him for what he’s done, but I got the message: you disrespect my rights to live in smoke-free environment, I suspend yours!
If a woman is “convinced of killing an abusive husband”, she was deemed dangerous for the rest of us, too, and was isolated. Deprivation of voting rights may be considered as a part of the punishment. Besides, she decided that her actions will be more effective than society’s (or lack of them). We can adopt “any conviction includes suspension of voting rights” rule, or extend it for the rest of criminal’s life, or get a judge/jury to decide the issue individually. The voter turnout is low here as is; knowing that any felon can vote as I can, is not a good inducement.
Duuuuude…let’s not go there.
MR
Fact: San Marino is the oldest continuous republic by a long shot.
It has been a democratic republic for at least 400-500 years and probably longer. Although, as this thread debate shows, “democracy” is a notoriously fuzzy concept. How do you define it so that all can agree on the definition?
By some definitions, at least, I think it quite possible that San Marino can lay claim to being the world’s oldest democratic republic (that is still going today, unlike the ancient Greeks).