Democracy. What Is Democracy? (What is democracy?) What is democracy in English

What Is Democracy?

Government of the People

Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history "s most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel(Vaclav Havel) in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.

In the dictionary definition, 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(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.

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediate(mediator) of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world "s first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting(town meeting) is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good(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.

How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their more representatives informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.

Majority Rule and Minority Rights

All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule(principle of subordination of the minority to the majority). But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.

Diane Ravitch, scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, wrote in a paper for an educational seminar in Poland: "When a representative democracy operates in accordance with a constitution that limits the powers of the government and guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, this form of government is a constitutional democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and the rights of minorities are protected by law and through the institutionalization of law."

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.

Democratic Society

Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority.

Thousands of private organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.

These groups represent the interests of their members in a variety of ways--by supporting candidates for public office, debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and labor unions.

In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. as a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions. Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the government at all.

In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government--unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state.

THE PILLARS(pillars, supports) OF DEMOCRACY
- Sovereignty of the people.
- Government based upon consent of the governed.
- Majority rule.
- Minority rights.
- Guarantee of basic human rights.
- Free and fair elections.
- Equality before the law.
- Due process of law.
- Constitutional limits on government.
- Social, economic, and political pluralism.
- Values ​​of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

…Are we dealing with intelligent monkeys or very lowly developed people?
Oldfield, 1865
The only sane and logical solution to an inferior race is to destroy it.
H. J. Wells, 1902

One of the most shameful pages in the history of English colonial expansion is the extermination of the native population of Fr. Tasmania.,

British settlers in Australia, and especially in Tasmania, for their own prosperity, systematically destroyed the indigenous population and undermined the foundations of their lives. The British "needed" all the lands of the natives with favorable climatic conditions. “Europeans can hope to prosper because… blacks will soon disappear…

If the natives are shot in the same way as crows are shot in some countries, then the [native] population must be greatly reduced over time,” wrote Robert Knox in his “philosophical study on the influence of race.” Alan Moorehead described the fatal changes that befell Australia in this way: “In Sydney, the wild tribes were washed out. In Tasmania they were exterminated to a man... by settlers... and convicts... they were all hungry for land, and none of them was going to let the blacks stop it.

However, those gentle and kind-hearted people whom Cook had visited half a century before were not as submissive as on the mainland. After the farmers took away the land from the indigenous people (primarily in Tasmania, where the climate was colder), the natives with spears in their hands tried to resist the newcomers armed with firearms. In response, the British organized a real hunt for them. In Tasmania, such a hunt for people took place with the sanction of the British authorities: “The final extermination on a large scale could only be carried out with the help of justice and the armed forces ... The soldiers of the fortieth regiment drove the natives between two boulders, shot

all the men, and then dragged the women and children out of the rock crevices to blow their brains out” (ISSO). If the natives were "unkind [unaccommodating]", the British concluded that the only way out of this situation was to destroy them. The natives were "hunted incessantly, hunted down like fallow deer." Those who could be caught were taken away. In 1835, the last surviving local resident was taken out. Moreover, these measures were not secret, no one was ashamed of them, and the government supported this policy.

“So, the hunt for people began, and over time it became more and more cruel. In 1830, Tasmania was placed under martial law; a chain of armed men was lined up all over the island, who tried to drive the natives into a trap. The natives managed to get through the cordon, but the will to live left the hearts of the savages, fear was stronger than despair ... ”Felix Maynard, a doctor on a French whaling ship, recalled the systematic raids on the natives. “The Tasmanians were useless and [now] all are dead,” Hammond thought.
* John Hammond Laurence Le Breton (1872-1949) historian and journalist.

The Europeans found the island quite densely populated. R. Pöh believes that about 6,000 natives could exist in Tasmania by the products of hunting and gathering. Wars between the natives did not go beyond petty tribal feuds. Apparently there were no hunger strikes, at least the Europeans did not find the natives exhausted.

The first Europeans were received by the Tasmanians with the greatest friendliness. According to Cook, the Tasmanians of all the "savages" he saw were the most good-natured and trusting people. "They did not have a ferocious appearance, but seemed kind and cheerful without distrust of strangers."

When in 1803 the first English settlement was founded on the island, the Tasmanians also reacted to the colonists without any hostility. Only the violence and cruelty of the Europeans forced the Tasmanians to change their attitude towards whites. In the sources we find numerous colorful examples of these violence and atrocities. “Someone named Carrots,” says H. Parker, “killed a native from whom he wanted to steal his wife, cut off his head, hung it like a toy around the neck of the murdered man and forced the woman to follow him.” The same author reports the exploits of a seal trader who “captured 15 native women and settled them around the islets of Bass Strait to hunt seals for him. If by his arrival the women did not have time to prepare the prescribed number of skins, he would tie the perpetrators to trees for 24-36 hours in a row, and from time to time he whipped them with rods.

In the early 1820s, the Tasmanians made attempts at organized armed resistance to European rapists and murderers. The so-called “black war” begins, which soon turned into a simple British hunt for Tasmanians, completely defenseless against white firearms.

H. Hull says bluntly that “black hunting was the favorite sport of the colonists. They chose a day and invited neighbors with their families for a picnic ... after dinner, the gentlemen took guns and dogs and, accompanied by 2-3 servants from the exiles, went to the forest to look for the Tasmanians. The hunters returned in triumph if they managed to shoot a woman or 1-2 men.

“A European colonist,” says Ling Roth, “had a jar in which he kept the ears of people he managed to kill as hunting trophies.”

In the photo: the last indigenous people of Tasmania

“Many blacks with women and children gathered in a ravine near the city ... the men sat around a large fire, while the women were busy preparing food for dinner. The natives were taken by surprise by a detachment of soldiers who, without warning, opened fire on them, and then rushed to finish off the wounded. One soldier pierced a child crawling near his murdered mother with a bayonet and threw him into the fire. This soldier himself told about his “feat” to the traveler Hull, and when the latter expressed indignation at his cruelty, he exclaimed with sincere surprise: “After all, it was only a child!”

In 1834 everything was finished. “December 28,” says E. Reclus, “the last natives, pursued like wild animals, were driven to the tip of one elevated cape, and this event was celebrated with triumph. The lucky hunter, Robinson, was rewarded by the government with an estate of 400 hectares and a significant amount of money.

The prisoners were first transferred from island to island, and then all the Tasmanians, including two hundred, were imprisoned in one swampy valley on. Flinders. Within 10 years, 3/4 of the exiles died.

In 1869, on the shores of Oyster Bay, near Hobart, William Lanny, the last Tasmanian, died.

In 1860 there were only eleven Tasmanians left. In 1876, the last Tasmanian, Truganini, dies, the island turns out, in the words of English official documents, to be completely “cleared” of natives, except for an insignificant number of Europeanized mestizos of Anglo-Tasmanian origin.

“During the Holocaust, Charles Darwin visited Tasmania. He wrote: "I'm afraid there is no doubt that the evil that is happening here, and its consequences, is the result of the shameless behavior of some of our countrymen." This is putting it mildly. It was a monstrous, unforgivable crime ... The natives had only two alternatives: either resist and die, or submit and become a parody of themselves, ”wrote Alan Moorehead. Polish traveler Count Strzelecki,

(* Strzelecki Edmund Pavel (1796-1873) - Polish naturalist, geographer and geologist, explorer of America, Oceania and Australia) who arrived in Australia in the late 1830s, could not help but express the horror of what he saw: “Humiliated, depressed, dismayed ... emaciated and covered in dirty rags, they are [once] the natural masters of this land - [now] more ghosts of the past than living people; they vegetate here in their melancholic existence, waiting for an even more melancholic end.” Strzelecki also mentioned "the examination by one race of the corpse of another - with the verdict: "She died overtaken by the punishment of God." The extermination of the natives could be regarded as hunting, as a sport, because they seemed to have no soul.
True, Christian missionaries opposed the notions of the "lack of soul" among the "natives" and saved the lives of a considerable number of the last indigenous inhabitants of Australia. However
however, the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, already in force in the post-war years, prescribed (section 127) "not to take into account the natives" when calculating the population of individual states. Thus, the constitution denied their involvement in the human race. After all, back in 1865, Europeans, when faced with natives, were not sure whether they were dealing with "intelligent apes or very lowly developed people."

Caring for "these beastmen" is "a crime against our own blood," Heinrich Himmler recalled in 1943, speaking of the Russians, who should have been subjugated to the Nordic master race.
The British, who were doing "unheard of things in colonization" in Australia (in the words of Adolf Hitler), needed no such instruction. So, one message for 1885 reads:
«Чтобы успокоить ниггеров, им дали нечто потрясающее. The food [which was distributed to them] was half strychnine - and no one escaped his fate ... The owner of Long Lagoon, using this trick, destroyed more than a hundred blacks. “In the old days in New South Wales, it was useless to get those who invited blacks over and gave them poisoned meat the punishment they deserved.” Некий Винсент Лесина еще в 1901 г. заявил в австралийском парламенте: «Ниггер должен исчезнуть с пути развития белого человека» — так «гласит закон эволюции». “We did not realize that by killing blacks we were breaking the law ... because it used to be practiced everywhere,” was the main argument of the British, who killed twenty-eight “friendly” (i.e. peaceful) natives in 1838. Prior to this massacre on Myell Creek, all actions to exterminate the indigenous inhabitants of Australia went unpunished. Only in the second year of the reign of Queen Victoria for such a crime, as an exception, seven Englishmen (from the lower strata) were hanged.

Nevertheless, in Queensland (northern Australia) at the end of the 19th century. невинной забавой считалось загнать целую семью «ниггеров» -мужа, жену и детей — в воду к крокодилам… Во время своего пребывания в Северном Квинсленде в 1880—1884 гг., норвежец Карл Лумхольц(*Лумхольц Карл Софус (1851—1922) — норвежский traveler, naturalist and ethnographer, explorer of Australia, Mexico, Indonesia) heard such statements: "Blacks can only be shot - they cannot be treated differently." One of the colonists remarked that this was a "hard ... but ... necessary principle." He himself shot all the men he met on his pastures, "because they are cattle-killers, women - because they give birth to cattle-killers, and children - because they [still] will be cattle-killers. They do not want to work and therefore are not good for anything but to get a bullet, ”the colonists complained to Lumholtz.

After reviewing the content Topeka (Works) on the topic "Great Britain" We advise each of you note for additional materials. Most of our topics contain additional questions by text and most interesting words text describing their meaning. By answering simple questions about the text, you will be able to comprehend the content as much as possible. Topeka (Works) and if you need to write your own Essay on the topic " Great Britain"You'll have the least amount of trouble.

If you have questions arise after reading individual words, you can double-click on an incomprehensible word and in the lower left corner in the form of a translation separate button which will allow you to hear directly word pronunciation. Or you can also go to the section English Reading Rules and find the answer to your question.

Democracy in Great Britain (1)

Great importance is attached to Britain to human rights. Respect for individual freedoms forms a cornerstone of Britain's democratic system. British public opinion is concerned about violations of human rights throughout the world. The British Government regards the observation of human rights and their protection as an important element of its foreign policy.
These rights and freedoms are listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. They include the right to: work; an adequate standard of living; social security; education; the highest attainable health care standards; form and join trade unions; participate in cultural life.
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness , disability, widowhood, old age.
The social security system aims to provide financial help to people who are elderly, sick, disabled, unemployed, widowed or bringing up children.
The system includes contributory national insurance benefits covering sickness, invalidity, unemployment, widowhood and retirement. There is also statutory sick pay and maternity pay paid for their employees by employers.
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups.
The National Health Service (NHS) provides comprehensive health care to all residents. Treatment is based on medical priority regardless of patients" income and is financed mainly out of general taxation.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Democracy in the UK (1)

The UK takes human rights very seriously. Attention to individual freedoms is the cornerstone of the British democratic system. The British public is concerned about the violation of human rights around the world. The British government considers the observance and protection of human rights to be an important element of foreign policy.
These rights and freedoms are listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. These are the right to work, an adequate standard of living, social security, education, a high level of health care, the creation and participation in trade unions, and participation in cultural life.
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and suitable conditions of work and to protection from unemployment.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care, and the right to assistance from social services in the event of unemployment, sickness, incapacity for work, widowhood and old age.
The goals of the social security system are to provide financial assistance to the elderly, the sick, the disabled, the unemployed, the widowed, and those with children.
The system includes the payment of insurance in case of sickness, disability, unemployment, widowhood and retirement. The law establishes the payment of sick leave and maternity leave to employees by their employers.
Everyone has the right to education. Education - primary and secondary - should be free. Primary education is compulsory. Technical and vocational training should be open to all, and higher education should be available to all who can learn.
Education should contribute to the development of the individual and the observance of fundamental freedoms and human rights. Education should promote mutual understanding, tolerance and friendship between representatives of different nationalities, races and religious groups.
The State Health Service provides the services of medical institutions to the entire population. Treatment is provided on medical grounds, regardless of the patient's income, and is funded primarily from taxes.
Everyone has the right to form and participate in trade unions to protect their interests.

“Where are we with a deep snout and a cloth row!” IN AND. Dal

On March 16, 2013, activists of the Essence of Time movement in the UK attempted to distribute informational (we emphasize informational, not campaigning) materials - AKSIO leaflets with the results of a survey of Russian citizens about the de-Sovietization campaign imposed on society in the interests of the ruling circles, during pompous and already traditional celebration of the Russian Maslenitsa on Trafalgar Square - in the very center of London - the cradle of selfless love for the Russian people. We hurried to go to the center of events in order to conduct a survey of our compatriots and collect signatures of all comers under the resolution of the All-Russian Parents' Congress. It turned out that the entrance to the territory of the festival, carefully fenced off by someone's prudent hand with a steel turnstile, lies through the cordon of inspectors - employees of a private security company. However, during a personal search, to which everyone who wished to go to the place of celebration - the center of the square, was subjected, when passing the security cordons, the attention of the guards, we emphasize once again, representatives of a private security company, was attracted by a word that deeply sits as a stinging splinter in the subconscious of a European man in the street. This word printed in red is the USSR. The unconditioned reflex worked instantly and we were quickly taken aside so as not to embarrass the few of our compatriots and just onlookers who came to the center of London on this unspring cloudy day for this strange event organized by Russian oligarchs with the support of the London City Hall. After all, there are so few idiots left to support the rapidly decrepit economy of this “New Babylon”, and “Russian” money smells no worse than others.

Upon additional examination, one of the leaflets was seized and carefully studied by a representative of the Polish security company, as it may seem strange to a reader who is not familiar with the realities of British life, origin. After reading it, the reader had knowledge of the Russian language, we were told that the entrance to the territory and the distribution of any printed matter of a political nature is strictly prohibited by the organizers of this wonderful spring holiday. In response to our counter question-comment that we do not see any hint of politics in the content of the leaflet, but only a demonstration of the results of a survey of Russians about the Soviet historical period. We tried to convey to the examiner that the leaflet only reports how the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens speak out against revising the role of the USSR in the history of the 20th century. We were categorically repeated that the organizers of the holiday do not consider it possible to overshadow this celebration of the victory of spring over winter with anything remotely related to politics - spring and that's it! Nothing else can overshadow this "bright holiday" in Trafalgar Square. It is necessary to pay tribute to the correct form in which this was done, but the fact remains that democracy with a persistent smell of spring is a carnival, as you know, it is a carnival in London too. It should be noted that our appearance in itself caused, if not surprise, then unambiguously understanding on the part of this glorious representative of the Polish national minority in London. The result remained the same: we were ordered to enter Trafalgar Square with leaflets. But do not rush to conclusions, dear reader! A few more words will be said about spring.
Bypassing the square in thought, although the word square, in relation to a patch with a fountain in the middle, is too strong a word, on which the “folk festival” should actually take place, carefully fenced, like an impregnable bastion, with a steel turnstile under heavy guard of employees of a private security agency, which was not much less than the "walkers" themselves. Imagine our surprise when the beginning of the big final concert in Trafalgar Square was drowned out by a hysterical, multiply amplified megaphone, howling, which marked the approach of something clearly dissonant with the general atmosphere of this beautiful spring holiday.
In utter bewilderment, we hurried to the noise of the approaching crowd, pardon the demonstration, surrounded by a dense ring of good old London bobbies, in which, according to a rough estimate, a little more than a hundred (at most two) demonstrators participated, fueled by the cries of an elderly female individual: “Assad is a murderer! » "Assad is a dictator!" Assad free Syria! Who were the imperturbable bobbies actually guarding: "Freedom Fighters" - is it a howling caudle with banners, in which, to give the organizers of this procession their due, there was no shortage (despite the fact that most of them were performed in English) and a megaphone from supporters the legitimately elected President of the Syrian Arab Republic, Bashar al-Assad, who “prowl in the center of London in flocks” or the “Russian” carnival from this menagerie, we do not know for sure.
While the demonstrators continued to chant anti-government slogans with wild fury, we hurried to film the entire procession. We were lucky enough to have a short interview with one of the demonstrators. The "freedom fighter of the Syrian people" readily told us that he demanded the overthrow of the "bloody" regime of the tyrant Assad. No more, no less! I wonder who he could demand this from, a stone's throw from the building of the British Parliament and Buckingham Palace!? One thing is clear: this demand was not explicitly addressed to Bashar al-Assad himself. To whose ears these cries could reach, it is only to the ears of Her Majesty or the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Everything unambiguously indicated that the guardians for the freedom of the Syrian people categorically demanded immediate intervention from the British authorities. This is what it is - the spring holiday Shrovetide, singed, on this not-spring cloudy day, Trafalgar Square with the bloody events of distant Syria.