History and Essential Principles of Rule of Law

Abraham G.Ghiorgis

The "History and Essential Principles of Rule of Law" pasted below is a compilation of two pieces -- on the essential principles of rule of law and its history -- prepared by "Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom." For ease of reading, I numerated the subtitles. It helps all of us to consult the experts, and to absorb the theoretical principles free from our biases and prejudices of the Eritrean national liberation struggle.

Eritrea has been an independent nation now for over two decades. Yet, it is a nation that has not yet implemented its own ratified constitution. It is a nation that is ruled by an authoritarian regime through arbitrary edicts and rules. Human rights, birth rights and all civil liberties of Eritreans irrespective of where they live ( inside Eritrea or abroad) are violated left and right.

The Eritrean struggle like all others in the world has always been a struggle to establish liberty and enshrine guaranteed civil liberties for all Eritreans. And only the rule of law guarantees and protects civil liberties. Not elections and multi-party contests accomplish that, though these are desirable items. If these items as stand alone by themselves were so good without being coupled with the rule of law, then there would have been no human rights violations in many African nations such as for example: Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria and Ethiopia - despite the fact that these nations have working constitutions, parliaments, relatively free press, multiparty contests, relatively free judiciary and etc. (I do not believe Eritrea is even in the same league as these nations, since Eritrea is a lawless state.) As a rule of thumb, a nation that abides by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights respects the rule of law.

The Eritrean leaders do not want their power to be constrained by the ratified constitution - a document that has a superb stand on civil liberties and human rights. The Eritrean leaders betrayed the Eritrean people. The Eritrean people innocently bestowed a complete trust on mere mortals and sinners like all of us. They naively assumed the Eritrean leaders would institutionalize freedom and liberty. They assumed that Lord Acton's dictum "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies to other people and not to Eritrean leaders.

Now through experience of hardship and abuse, the Eritrean people realize that the Eritrean leaders have no concept of the rule of law. This is immaterial whether this is through malice or ignorance. The real impact is that the PFDJ has made Eritrea a failed nation in the making.The PFDJ substantiates its authoritarian rule in Eritrea using fancy and ear pleasing terms of "equality" and "justice." Equality and justice are meaningless terms and unachievable if there are no rule of law and democracy in a nation. In particular, "the rule of law is a bulwark against tyranny." The Eritrean people have already figured out the PFDJ -- it cannot fool any Eritrean even those who are associated with its organization. This is the easy part.

The hard part is that we have some in the opposition that are as clueless as the PFDJ when it comes to the concept of the rule of law. Just visit some of the famous Eritrean websites and you will start scratching your heads. To lack a knowledge on a certain subject is not a sin. However, not learning from others and not studying from books and not doing once homework diligently is a blunder, this applies in particular to those who present themselves to us as opinion makers and shakers in the Eritrea liberal democratic opposition. Their tremendous contributions towards the struggle for liberty in Eritrea is laudable, but that should not shelter them from constructive criticisms when they are obviously in the wrong. No one should arrogate to oneself to have the last word on every subject and I might add on subjects that sometimes appear to be completely foreign to one. At the minimum one should endow oneself with a small dose of humility. Eritrea is a small nation. We already have an autocrat in the name of Isaias. One Isaias is too many for Eritrea. The last thing we need in the internet is another Isaias who polices our thoughts.

In the final analysis, our fight against the authoritarian regime in Eritrea is a fight for constructive and positive ideas. It is a peaceful struggle to transform our society from a society of violence -- that at first was imposed on us in order to liberate Eritrea from colonizers but once Eritrea was liberated it should not continue as if we were still in the armed struggle -- into a society of peace and civil liberties protected by the rule of law.


Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

Note: the blogspot noted below has a reading list of books on the subjects of property rights, rule of law, and constitutional government. Also included are previous articles published in Eritrean websites and other relevant articles on Eritrea and Ethiopia. The site is as follows:

http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History and Essential Principles of Rule of Law

By "Democracy Web"

(I) Rule of Law: Essential Principles $$$

"...the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other."

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

"Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."

Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 1

"Government in Saudi Arabia derives power from the Holy Koran and the Prophet's tradition."

The Basic Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Article 7


(I) A. The Ultimate Breakdown

The Crimean Tatars, a small Muslim group that had settled on the Crimean peninsula in the 14th century, had loyally joined in the Soviet Union's battle against Nazi Germany. Yet, during the course of World War II, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin questioned the Tatars' loyalty as a community because some Tatars had reportedly served in Nazi battalions. Stalin ordered the summary deportation of the entire Tatar population to Central Asia.

On May 18, 1944, agents of the Soviet secret police (the NKVD) began rounding up Tatars and deporting them by train to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Within two days, approximately 200,000 Tatars had been exiled, and approximately a third of those exiled later died from hunger, exposure, and disease. Stalin's regime undertook similar actions against other small ethnic groups in the Caucasus in the attempt to rid the region of all minority communities.

The ethnic cleansings that occurred under Stalin were illustrations of his arbitrary and unchecked rule, which cost tens of millions of people their lives. Such abuses serve as examples of the ultimate breakdown in the rule of law.

(I) B. A Necessary Accompaniment for Democracy

In democracies, the use of arbitrary power is considered anathema to the rule of law. Fundamentally, constitutional limits on power, a key feature of democracy, requires adherence to the rule of law. Indeed, the rule of law could be defined as the subjugation of state power to a country's constitution and laws, established or adopted through popular consent. This is the meaning of the commonly cited phrase "a government of laws, not men," made famous by John Adams, the second president of the United States. Under such a system, law should be supreme to the capricious authority of any individual. The rule of law is the supreme check on political power used against people's rights. Without the regulation of state power by a system of laws, procedures, and courts, democracy could not survive.

Although the rule of law protects the majority from arbitrary power and tyranny, it should also protect the minority both from arbitrary power and the "tyranny of the majority" (see also "Majority Rule/Minority Rights"). Without the rule of law, there is likely to be either a dictatorship or mob rule. Some revolutionary thinkers have extolled mob rule as the highest form of political and social justice. In reality, however, mob rule has meant violence and political chaos, which are the very same conditions that often give rise to dictatorship, the exercise of arbitrary power, and the denial of individual rights.

(I) C. The Rule of Law: Contrasting Principles

Much of what Americans consider to be the rule of law is derived from Anglo-Saxon legal traditions (see History section below). But there are many variations in how different countries organize legal and political institutions and apply the rule of law. These differences can often be confusing when talking about basic principles. For example, the American and British principles of "innocent until proven guilty," the right not to incriminate oneself, and the right to be tried by a jury of one's peers are so deeply ingrained in the fabric of the law and society that they might be considered absolute principles. Yet the rest of Europe, most of which follows a Roman law tradition, does not operate by any of these tenets. Principles of the French system, such as the assumption of guilt or the legality of indefinite periods of incarceration, violate the American and British standards of justice. Furthermore, the many violations by modern democracies of their own rule of law principles justify the questioning of its absolute validity.

(I) D. The Rule of Law: Common Definitions

Still, the adoption and practice of basic principles of the rule of law are clear barometers for any democracy. Apparent contradictions in principle or practice do not negate the rule of law's overall importance. The awful consequences of the breakdown of the rule of law in dictatorships, as recounted above, make its importance self-evident. In democratic societies, deviations from the principles of the rule of law, such as slavery and systematic discrimination in the United States, or the unequal treatment of women historically, serve as powerful arguments for the fulfillment of those principles.

Thus, while there is no set definition of the rule of law encompassing all its practices, there is a basic realm of common principles. The scholar Rachel Kleinfeld Belton identifies five:

• a government bound by and ruled by law;

• equality before the law;

• the establishment of law and order;

• the efficient and predictable application of justice; and

• the protection of human rights.

One might add that the Western concept of the rule of law should also include the separation of religion and state as a basic constitutional principle, since the influence of both state and religious institutions in the application of the law could lead to arbitrary interpretations. Even in Western countries with a strong religious presence, the policies of organized religion are separate from those of the government.

(I) E. Institutions of the Rule of Law

Belton also identifies a second definition for the rule of law, namely one based on the institutions or instruments by which the ends of rule of law are achieved. These include:

• the existence of comprehensive laws or a constitution based on popular consent;

• a functioning judicial system;

• established law enforcement agencies with well-trained officers.

Absent any of these features, the rule of law may arguably break down. A constitution without legitimacy will not be respected by the people, and thus its principles cannot be upheld. If there is no constitutional check on the misuse of power, a corrupt judiciary or police force can manipulate the laws to their advantage, incompetent lawyers cannot adequately represent their clients, and so on. The Watergate scandal of the early 1970s—when former president Richard Nixon tried to cover up his administration's involvement in illegal activities aimed to ensure his reelection—illustrates how the institutions of the rule of law act together to protect its principles. The media and public, exercising their right to free speech, uncovered and publicized the Republican administration's illegal activities. Through the U.S. Supreme Court's decision United States v. Nixon (1974), which stated that executive privilege was not absolute and that Nixon was required to release his tapes, the Supreme Court enforced Congress's authority to investigate "high crimes and misdemeanors." The House of Representatives, in turn, impeached the president for breaking the law and violating his oath of office. These actions forced Nixon to resign, which was the first time a president had done so in U.S. history. In this way, a president who sought to act outside of the law to aggrandize political power was prevented from doing so.

Belton notes another factor necessary to achieve the rule of law, namely the will of society to enforce basic principles of equality, fairness, and justice. During the height of the British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rule of law principles did not apply in its colonies, where democratic rights were trampled. In the United States, the period of slavery (which was ended countrywide by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865) is perhaps the most flagrant example within a democratic society of the breakdown of the rule of law. Even after the emancipation of slaves, the adoption of Jim Crow laws throughout the South and U.S. Supreme Court rulings turned the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under the law, on its head. An example of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld segregation is Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which supported the legality of segregation, provided that facilities were separate but equal. Today, it is almost incomprehensible that the American system of democracy supported such terrible contradictions, which condoned the majority's abuse of a minority. Yet it was through the rule of law that African Americans were able to slowly win back their rights. In 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that segregation during interstate travel was unconstitutional, giving rise to the Freedom Rides, where activists tested this assertion through bus rides throughout the South. The Supreme Court later overturned the legality of "separate but equal" conditions with the decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. These two decisions helped to convince American society to end racial segregation and the systematic mistreatment of African Americans through the enactment of sweeping civil rights legislation beginning in the 1960s. The will of society, in this instance, was essential in the establishment of basic rule of law standards.

(I) F. International Rule of Law

Following World War II, the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials and the adoption of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide established international principles of the rule of law, most importantly that no government is above the universal laws of nations, and that the international community may act to prevent and respond to acts of genocide. But no international judicial institutions were established to ensure that states would adhere to these international principles. Consequently, ethnic cleansing and genocide have continued to take place, eliciting either no action or a delayed reaction from members of the international community to try to prevent further killing (most recently in the Balkans, Rwanda, and now the Darfur region of Sudan, among others). However, starting in the mid-1990s, the United Nations set up courts in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda to investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity with the aim of preventing similar atrocities from occurring elsewhere. In 1988, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and applies to abuses occurring after July 1, 2002, in situations where national judicial systems do not or cannot assume the case. The innovation of the ICC is that it has the power to prosecute individuals who commit abuses in a signatory state or who are citizens of a signatory state; the United States, however, has not participated in the ICC. More recently, mixed or hybrid tribunals, established through the joint efforts of the United Nations and national governments, have been established in East Timor, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone. Finally, in some countries, such as Iraq, the prosecution of crimes against humanity has been domestic. It is open for debate whether domestic or even mixed criminal tribunals are successful in establishing consistent principles of an international rule of law.

(II) Rule of Law: History $$$

(II) A. The Code of Hammurabi

The earliest written legal code for a government was the Code of Hammurabi for Babylon, dating from 1750 BC. Hammurabi, who needed to unite his disparate realm, decided to establish common rules of conduct, commerce, and devotion to the king under a system overseen by judges. In comparison with contemporary standards, much of the code is severe: many crimes were punishable with death or corporal punishment. Nevertheless, it was remarkable for introducing the ideas that government should be subject to the law; that laws should be based on public rules, not secret or divine ones; and that law should be efficiently and fairly applied by judges, principles that Belton mentions above.

(II) B. The Modern Understanding of Athens

In the area of the rule of law, ancient Athens is best known for its prosecution and execution of the great philosopher Socrates in 399 BC, on charges of treason and corrupting Athens' youth by encouraging philosophical discussion. But this case, usually presented as an example of unjust mob rule, masks the contributions of ancient Athens in the development of rule of law principles. In the Athenian system, magistrates and jurors were drawn by lottery from the Assembly, composed of citizens, since it was believed that judgment should be by one's peers. All citizens had the right to bring both private and public matters before the courts. In commercial law, the principle of binding and enforceable contracts among equal citizens was introduced. This meant that law, not brute force, determined commercial exchanges, helping to make Athens the region's center for trade. Despite its large juries (up to 5,000), a common subject of mockery by critics, the Athenian system appears to have worked efficiently, and citizens safeguarded it jealously. Juries composed of peers and equal access by citizen to courts are just some of the characteristics of Athenian law included in most contemporary justice systems.

(II) C. Roman Law

Most scholars, however, cite the Roman system as the most important tradition influencing Western law. Roman law was less egalitarian in origin, since its first purpose was to protect aristocratic landholders. Furthermore, the spread of Roman law occurred through empire and military dominance. Yet the Roman tradition implanted several basic principles of the rule of law, including the need for public knowledge of civil law and judicial procedures, the evolution of law according to precedent and circumstances, and the idea that natural law (universal rights of man) can provide the basis for positive (man-made) law. The Roman tradition was maintained under the Byzantine Empire and over time was incorporated into much of European law and practice throughout the Holy Roman Empire.

(II) D. The Magna Carta

For many theorists, the most important idea in the rule of law as a concept of governance was the signing of the Magna Carta in England in 1215. Signed by King John, this document limited—for the first time—the power of the king in relation to his subjects by forbidding the raising of taxes without the approval of a partially elected parliament (see also "Constitutional Limits"). It also established other equally important limits:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we (the King) proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land [emphasis added].

(II) E1. The Anglo-Saxon Tradition

Abuses of power by the Stuart monarchy in England during the early 17th century led to the adoption of the Petition of Grievances in 1610, which established the right of citizens to petition government to seek redress for abuses of power. Charles I's attempt to reassert the monarchy's absolute power by raising an army without parliamentary approval led to the adoption of the Petition of Right in 1628, which more firmly grounded in law the principle of no taxation without representation.

The most important aspect of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, though, was the adoption of the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679. Charles II, undeterred by the bloody struggle of the English Civil War (1642–51) between Parliamentarians and Loyalists and the brief period of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell and his son (1653–59), quickly abused his powers upon being restored to the monarchy. He imprisoned his opponents without cause and attempted to reestablish Catholicism as the state religion against the clear will of Parliament and the people. Parliament reasserted its rights through the Habeas Corpus Act. The principle of habeas corpus, also known as "the Great Writ," holds that those who have been incarcerated must have their cases heard in court to determine the validity of the arrest or conviction (in Latin, habeas corpus literally means "to have the body"). While the principle had been in existence for over two centuries, the Habeas Corpus Act formalized its use and asserted that the government has neither the right to imprison without cause nor the right to act above the law in relation to its citizens. The law ordered "all sheriffs, gaolers and other officers" in custody of "the King's subjects" to "yield authority" to all writs of the court, meaning that no government official could ignore the law. Today, the principle of habeas corpus provides protection against the abuse of government power through arbitrary or politically motivated imprisonments.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 replaced the Catholic James II with his daughter, Mary, a Protestant, and her husband (and also her cousin), William of Orange, on the condition that they accepted the English Bill of Rights, adopted in 1689. This bill reinforced the Habeas Corpus Act, the Petition of Right, and the Petition of Grievances, and established other rule of law standards as constitutional foundations, such as the right to trial by jury, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and limitations on the powers of the monarchy. The Act of Settlement of 1701 later established Parliament's power to determine succession to the monarchy.

(II) E. The Rule of Law as Bulwark Against Government Tyranny

The English Bill of Rights recognized the importance of positive rights, which were being asserted by Enlightenment thinkers. Positive rights refer to a moral obligation that is owed to someone, as opposed to negative rights, which require only the absence of interference. According to many Enlightenment philosophers, these positive rights were natural rights, meaning that all humans were entitled to them and that the state could not violate them. Such rights were an indispensable accompaniment to representative government and were adopted by supporters of both the American and French Revolutions. The American version of the Bill of Rights expanded constitutional protections to include the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to confront one's accuser in court, and the right to protection against unwarranted search and seizures. In the U.S. Constitution, these standards of rule of law — encompassed within the phrase "due process"— are considered the main bulwark against any threat of tyranny by the government.

(II) F. The Separation of Powers

The question arises, then, as to who will enforce the standards of the rule of law. In modern democracies, the rule of law relies on the presence of a judiciary or court system that can act independently of executive and legislative powers, ruling on the basis of established law and not on the basis of arbitrary or politically motivated considerations. Separation of powers is thus essential to the rule of law. Baron de Montesquieu, whose The Spirit of Laws (1748) was a guide for many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution, argued:

Again, there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.

The independence of the federal judiciary in the United States is established through the "advise and consent" powers of the Senate, such as the need for Senate approval of the president's nominees for federal judges, and the Senate's sole authority to impeach judges from their lifetime appointments, whether due to incompetence or malfeasance. The independence of the judiciary was further strengthened in Marbury v. Madison (1803), decided by Chief Justice John Marshall, which asserted the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, meaning that the Court became the final arbiter of whether laws and the government's actions are constitutional.

(II) G. The Expansion of Rule of Law

The incorporation of the rule of law and the separation of powers in British and U.S. law had a great influence over the next two centuries, first as a result of the expansion of the British Empire, and second as a result of the growing influence of the United States as a world power. Rule of law principles came to symbolize the expansion of rights and liberties around the globe. More significant, natural law arguments in favor of due process, human rights, and self-governance became the instruments for many independence and democracy movements worldwide. Mahatma Gandhi is one of the best-known and most successful of the advocates for combining claims of legal rights with civic resistance against unjust laws. Gandhi succeeded in forcing the British government to abide by its own principles. This strategy has attracted many followers. In the United States, followers of Gandhi, such as Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr., used the instruments of protest and civic resistance to empower African Americans to act against Jim Crow and legalized discrimination.

(II) H. The Contraction of Rule of Law

As noted above, tyranny stands opposite to the rule of law—it may even reflect its total breakdown. In dictatorships, the institutions of the rule of law frequently become instruments of oppression. Indeed, recognizing the power of law as a foundation for governance, dictatorships develop their own perverted claims to the rule of law. Nazi Germany and other Fascist states, for instance, imposed legal systems based on the supreme power of the leader and the superiority of one race over all others. Communist regimes superimposed the class struggle over "bourgeois" concepts of human rights in all laws, and then established the absolute authority of Communist parties to decide on all aspects of law and life. Many intellectuals were seduced by the idea of a higher form of egalitarianism based on "national" or "socialist" law. In fact, there was no law, only justification for the most brutal actions—mass murder, forced labor, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

(II) I. Universal Rule of Law

The defeat of fascism and Nazi Germany propelled the establishment of universal standards of human rights and the rule of law through agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Convention Against Genocide (1948), the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the Convention Against Torture (1984). The collapse of communism and the Soviet Union in 1989–1991, the end of apartheid in South Africa in the early 1990s, and the collapse of Fascist regimes in Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s further reinforced the rule of law as a universal principle not only of justice but also of governance.

(II) J. Islamic Law

There is, however, an Islamic tradition of law that competes with the Western definition of the rule of law based on individual rights. The Islamic system of justice (or Sharia), involves the application of sacred principles as related to the Prophet Muhammad by Allah (the Arabic word for God). In many Muslim countries, Islamic or Sharia courts are complementary to state courts in civil and religious matters.

Such courts are presided over by clerics who interpret the Koran for its application in specific instances of claimed injustice or appeals for mediation. Sometimes, such religious courts follow established procedures and act as a positive mediating influence in society. Sometimes, however, Islamic or Sharia courts act according to procedures based on a particular interpretation of Islam or national custom. This could lead to abuses for political purposes or to the promotion of a sectarian understanding of the Koran (Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, for example). In such cases, religious courts operate outside of the concepts of the rule of law discussed above that stress equal application of the law, due process, uniformity of expectations, and so on. Thus, in all Muslim countries where democracy has been established (as well as some other predominantly Muslim countries), state courts supersede religious courts.

In a few countries, such as Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia, Islamic justice is a tool for imposing a harsh dictatorship based on restrictive interpretations of Islamic law and texts. In recent decades, radical Islamism has also spread to other countries and is used as a tool for seeking power or imposing the will of the majority over the minority (see, for example, the Country Studies of Sudan or Nigeria). More significant, fanatical movements such as al-Qaeda have arisen seeking to achieve a radical vision of Islam in order to establish a universal theocracy. In this vision, the use of violence against innocent Muslims and non-Muslims alike is justified to fulfill radical Islamist goals. Such views are antithetical to any ideas of the rule of law and contrary to the understanding of Islam for most Muslims today.

Source:
http://www.democracyweb.org/rule/principles.php

Principles of Democracy

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

The article “Principles of Democracy” pasted below is a compilation of twenty-one pillars of democracy written by experts in the subject.

I observe that at times the opposition acts at cross-purposes. The confusion I believe primarily emanates from not having a common understanding of the essential doctrine of democracy and the rule of law. Thus, now and then, it may be necessary to read and review the theoretical concepts of democracy and the rule of law free from our biases and prejudices of the Eritrean national liberation struggle.

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

______________________________________________________________

Principles of Democracy


by the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs

Introduction

This page contains 21 pieces in a new series of one-page primers on the fundamentals of democracy produced by the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs. Each of these short papers is available in English, Arabic, Chinese, Dari, French, Korean, Pashto, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish versions.

Although the term is ubiquitous in today's world, explaining "democracy" can be challenging. This series provides the reader with an overview paper and then breaks down the specific elements of democratic governance into individual topics. Each paper in the series reflects both the thinking of mainstream theorists and common practices of the many free societies now flourishing under systems of democratic governance.

(1) Overview: What is Democracy?

Democracy comes from the Greek word, “demos,” meaning people. In democracies, it is the people who hold sovereign power over legislator and government.

Although nuances apply to the world's various democracies, certain principles and practices distinguish democratic government from other forms of government.

• Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all citizens, directly or through their freely elected representatives.

• Democracy is a set of principles and practices that protect human freedom; it is the institutionalization of freedom.

• Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.

• Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that local government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.

• Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.

• Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens. Elections in a democracy cannot be facades that dictators or a single party hide behind, but authentic competitions for the support of the people.

• Democracy subjects governments to the rule of law and ensures that all citizens receive equal protection under the law and that their rights are protected by the legal system.

• Democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation's unique political, social, and cultural life. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform practices.

• Citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.

• Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. Democracies recognize that reaching consensus requires compromise and that it may not always be attainable. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

(2) Majority Rule, Minority Rights

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

• Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

• Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

• Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

• Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

• Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

• There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved – only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.

(3) Civil-Military Relations

Issues of war and peace are the most momentous any nation can face, and at times of crisis, many nations turn to their military for leadership.

Not in democracies.

In democracies, questions of peace and war or other threats to national security are the most important issues a society faces, and thus must be decided by the people, acting through their elected representatives. A democratic military serves its nation rather than leads it. Military leaders advise the elected leaders and carry out their decisions. Only those who are elected by the people have the authority and the responsibility to decide the fate of a nation.

This idea of civilian control and authority over the military is thus, fundamental to democracy.

• Civilians need to direct their nation's military and decide issues of national defense not because they are necessarily wiser than military professionals, but precisely because they are the people's representatives and as such are charged with the responsibility for making these decisions and remaining accountable for them.

• The military in a democracy exists to protect the nation and the freedoms of its people. It does not represent or support any political viewpoint or ethnic and social group. Its loyalty is to the larger ideals of the nation, to the rule of law, and to the principle of democracy itself.

• Civilian control assures that a country's values, institutions, and policies are the free choices of the people rather than the military. The purpose of a military is to defend society, not define it.

• Any democratic government values the expertise and advice of military professionals in reaching policy decisions about defense and national security. Civilian officials rely upon the military for expert advice on these matters and to carry out the decisions of the government. But only the elected civilian leadership should make ultimate policy decisions – which the military then implements in its sphere.

• Military figures may, of course, participate fully and equally in the political life of their country just like any other citizens - but only as individual voters. Military people must first retire from military service before becoming involved in politics; armed services must remain separate from politics. The military are the neutral servants of the state, and the guardians of society.

• Ultimately, civilian control of the military ensures that defense and national security issues do not compromise the basic democratic values of majority rule, minority rights, and freedom of speech, religion, and due process. It is the responsibility of all political leaders to enforce civilian control and the responsibility of the military to obey the lawful orders of civilian authorities.

(4) Political Parties

To preserve and protect individual rights and freedoms, a democratic people must work together to shape the government of their choosing. And the principal way of doing that is through political parties.

• Political parties are voluntary organizations that link the people and their government. Parties recruit candidates and campaign to elect them to public office, and they mobilize people to participate in selecting government leaders.

• The majority party (or the party elected to control the offices of government) seeks to enact into law a number of different policies and programs. Parties of the opposition are free to criticize the majority party's policy ideas and offer their own proposals.

• Political parties provide a way for citizens to hold elected party officials accountable for their actions in government.

• Democratic political parties have faith in the principles of democracy so that they recognize and respect the authority of the elected government even when their party leaders are not in power.

• Like any democracy, members of various political parties reflect the diversity of the cultures in which they arise. Some are small and built around a set of political beliefs. Others are organized around economic interests, or shared history. Still others are loose alliances of different citizens who may only come together at election time.

• All democratic political parties, whether they are small movements or large national coalitions, share the values of compromise and tolerance. They know that only through broad alliances and cooperation with other political parties and organizations can they provide the leadership and common vision that will win the support of the people of the nation.

• Democratic parties recognize that political views are fluid and changeable, and that consensus can often arise out of the clash of ideas and values in peaceful, free, and public debate.

• The concept of the loyal opposition is central to any democracy. It means that all sides in political debate – however deep their differences – share the fundamental democratic values of freedom of speech and faith, and equal protection under law. Parties that lose elections step into the role of opposition – confident that the political system will continue to protect their right to organize and speak out. In time, their party will have a chance to campaign again for its ideas, and the votes of the people.

• In a democracy, the struggle between political parties is not a fight for survival, but a competition to serve the people.

(5) Citizen Responsibilities

Unlike a dictatorship, a democratic government exists to serve the people, but citizens in democracies must also agree to abide by the rules and obligations by which they are governed. Democracies grant many freedoms to their citizens including the freedom to dissent and criticize the government.

Citizenship in a democracy requires participation, civility, and even patience.

• Democratic citizens recognize that they not only have rights, they have responsibilities. They recognize that democracy requires an investment of time and hard work – a government of the people demands constant vigilance and support by the people.

• Under some democratic governments, civic participation means that citizens are required to serve on juries, or give mandatory military or civilian national service for a period of time. Other obligations apply to all democracies and are the sole responsibility of the citizen – chief among these is respect for law. Paying one's fair share of taxes, accepting the authority of the elected government, and respecting the rights of those with differing points of view are also examples of citizen responsibility.

• Democratic citizens know that they must bear the burden of responsibility for their society if they are to benefit from its protection of their rights.

• There is a saying in free societies: you get the government you deserve. For democracy to succeed, citizens must be active, not passive, because they know that the success or failure of the government is their responsibility, and no one else's. In turn, government officials understand that all citizens should be treated equally and that bribery has no place in a democratic government.

• In a democratic system, people unhappy with their leaders are free to organize and peacefully make the case for change – or try to vote those leaders out of office at established times for elections.

• Democracies need more than an occasional vote from their citizens to remain healthy. They need the steady attention, time, and commitment of large numbers of their citizens who, in turn, look to the government to protect their rights and freedoms.

• Citizens in a democracy join political parties and campaign for the candidates of their choice. They accept the fact that their party may not always be in power.
-- They are free to run for office or serve as appointed public officials for a time.

-- They utilize a free press to speak out on local and national issues.

-- They join labor unions, community groups, and business associations.

-- They join private voluntary organizations that share their interests – whether devoted to religion, ethnic culture, academic study, sports, the arts, literature, neighborhood improvement, international student exchanges, or a hundred other different activities.

-- All these groups – no matter how close to, or remote from government – contribute to the richness and health of their democracy.

(6) A Free Press

In a democracy the press should operate free from governmental control. Democratic governments do not have ministries of information to regulate content of newspapers or the activities of journalists; requirements that journalists be vetted by the state; or force journalists to join government-controlled unions.

• A free press informs the public, holds leaders accountable, and provides a forum for debate of local and national issues.

•  Democracies foster the existence of a free press. An independent judiciary, civil society with rule of law, and free speech all support a free press. A free press must have legal protections.

• In democracies the government is accountable for its actions. Citizens therefore expect to be informed about decisions their governments make on their behalf. The press facilitates this "right to know," by serving as a watchdog over the government, helping citizens to hold government accountable, and questioning its policies. Democratic governments grant journalists access to public meetings and public documents. They do not place prior restraints on what journalists may say or print.

• The press, itself, must act responsibly. Through professional associations, independent press councils, and "ombudsmen," in-house critics who hear public complaints, the press responds to complaints of its own excesses and remains internally accountable.

• Democracy requires the public to make choices and decisions. In order for the public to trust the press, journalists must provide factual reporting based on credible sources and information. Plagiarism and false reporting are counterproductive to a free press.

• Press outlets should establish their own editorial boards, independent of government control, in order to separate information gathering and dissemination from editorial processes.

• Journalists should not be swayed by public opinion, only by the pursuit of truth, as close as they can get to it. A democracy allows the press to go about its business of collecting and reporting the news without fear or favor from the government.

• Democracies foster a never-ending struggle between two rights: The government's obligation to protect national security; and the people's right to know, based on journalists' ability to access information. Governments sometimes need to limit access to information considered too sensitive for general distribution. But journalists in democracies are fully justified in pursuing such information.

(7) Federalism

When diverse groups of free people – with different languages, religious faiths, or cultural norms – choose to live under an agreed constitutional framework, they expect a degree of local autonomy and equal economic and social opportunities. A federal system of government – power shared at the local, regional, and national levels – empowers elected officials who design and administer policies tailored to local and regional needs. They work in partnership with a national government and with each other to solve the many problems the nation faces.

• Federalism is a system of shared power and decision-making between two or more freely elected governments with authority over the same people and geographical area. It grants and protects decision-making ability where results are most immediately felt – in local communities, as well as at higher levels of government.

• Federalism fosters government accountability to the people and encourages citizen participation and civic responsibility by allowing local governments to design and administer local laws.

• A federal system is strengthened by a written constitution granting authority and outlining the scope of shared responsibilities enjoyed by each level of government.

• While it is generally agreed that local governments should satisfy local needs, some issues are best left to the national government. Defense, international treaties, federal budgets, and postal services are often cited as examples.

• Local ordinances reflect the preferences by which local communities choose to live – police and fire patrols, school administration, and local health and building regulations are often designed and administered locally.

• Intergovernmental relations means that various governments in a federal state (national, regional, and local) work together when issues of statutory authority imply the need to address issues cooperatively. The national government often has authority to mediate disputes between regions.

• In a geographically large and economically diverse nation, disparities in income and social welfare among regions can be addressed by the national government through policies that redistribute tax revenues.

• A federal system is responsive and inclusive. Citizens are free to run for government positions at all levels – local and regional governments offer the most positions and, perhaps, the most opportunity to make a difference in their communities.

• Federalism provides multiple opportunities for political parties to serve their constituents. Even if a particular party does not hold a majority in the national legislature or the executive, it is permitted to participate at the regional and local levels.

(8) Rule of Law

For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous – law was simply the will of the ruler. A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means. Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives.

• Rule of law means that no individual, president or private citizen, stands above law. Democratic governments exercise authority by way of law and are themselves subject to law's constraints.

• Laws should express the will of the people, not the whims of kings, dictators, military officials, religious leaders, or self-appointed political parties.

• Citizens in democracies are willing to obey the laws of their society, then, because they are submitting to their own rules and regulations. Justice is best achieved when the laws are established by the very people who must obey them.

• Under the rule of law, a system of strong, independent courts should have the power and authority, resources, and the prestige to hold government officials, even top leaders, accountable to the nation's laws and regulations.

• For this reason, judges should be well trained, professional, independent, and impartial. To serve their necessary role in the legal and political system, judges must be committed to the principles of democracy.

• The laws of a democracy may have many sources: written constitutions; statutes and regulations; religious and ethical teachings; and cultural traditions and practices. Regardless of origin the law should enshrine certain provisions to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens:
• Under the requirement of equal protection under the law, the law may not be uniquely applicable to any single individual or group.

• Citizens must be secure from arbitrary arrest and unreasonable search of their homes or the seizure of their personal property.

• Citizens charged with crimes are entitled to a speedy and public trial, along with the opportunity to confront and question their accusers. If convicted, they may not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.

• Citizens cannot be forced to testify against themselves. This principle protects citizens from coercion, abuse, or torture and greatly reduces the temptation of police to employ such measures.

(9) Human Rights

All human beings are born with inalienable rights. These human rights empower people to pursue lives of dignity – thus, no government can bestow them but all governments should protect them. Freedom, built on a foundation of justice, tolerance, dignity, and respect – regardless of ethnicity, religion, political association, or social standing – allows people to pursue these fundamental rights. Whereas dictatorships deny human rights, free societies continually strive to attain them.
Human rights are interdependent and indivisible; they encompass myriad facets of human existence including social, political, and economic issues. Among the most commonly accepted are:

• All people should have the right to form their own opinions and express them individually or in peaceful assemblies. Free societies create a “marketplace of ideas” where people exchange their views on any number of issues.

• All people should have the right to participate in government. Governments should create laws that protect human rights while justice systems enforce those laws equally among the population.

• Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture – whether one is an opponent of the ruling political party, an ethnic minority, or even a common criminal – is a basic human right. A professional police force respects all citizens as it enforces the laws of the nation.

• In ethnically diverse nations, religious and ethnic minorities should be free to use their language and maintain their traditions without fear of recrimination from the majority population. Governments should recognize the rights of minorities while respecting the will of the majority.

• All people should have the opportunity to work, earn a living, and support their families.

• Children deserve special protection. They should receive at least an elementary education, proper nutrition, and healthcare.

• To maintain human rights, citizens in any free society need to be vigilant. Citizen responsibility – through a variety of participatory activities – ensures that government remains accountable to the people. The family of free nations is committed to work toward protection of human rights. They formalize their commitment through a number of international treaties and covenants on human rights.

(10) Executive Power

Leaders of democratic governments govern with the consent of their citizens. Such leaders are powerful not because they command armies or economic wealth, but because they respect the limits placed on them by the electorate in a free and fair election.

• Through free elections, citizens of a democracy confer powers upon their leaders that are defined by law. In a constitutional democracy, power is divided so that the legislature makes the laws, the executive authority enforces and carries them out, and the judiciary operates independently.

• Democratic leaders are neither elected dictators nor “presidents-for-life.” They serve fixed terms in office and accept the results of free elections, even if it means losing control of the government.

• In constitutional democracies, executive authority is generally limited in three ways: by a system of checks and balances separating the national government's executive, legislative, and judicial powers; by federalism, which divides power between the national government and the state/local governments; and by constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights.

• At the national level, the executive is limited by the constitutional authority vested in the legislative branch and by an independent judiciary

• Executive authority in modern democracies is generally organized in one of two ways: as a parliamentary or a presidential system.
-- In a parliamentary system, the majority party in the legislature forms the executive branch of the government, headed by a prime minister.
-- In a parliamentary system, the legislative and executive branches are not entirely distinct from one another, since the prime minister and members of the cabinet are drawn from the parliament. In such systems, the political opposition serves as a chief means of limiting, or checking the authority of the executive.
-- In a presidential system, the president is elected separately from the members of the legislature.
-- In a presidential system, both the president and the legislature have their own power bases and political constituencies, which serve to check and balance each other.

• Democracies do not require their governments to be weak, only limited. Consequently, democracies may be slow to reach agreement on national issues; yet when they do, their leaders can act with great authority and confidence.

• At all times, leaders in a constitutional democracy function within the rule of law that defines and restricts their authority.

(11) Legislative Power

Elected representatives in a democracy – whether members of a parliament, assembly, or Congress – are there to serve the people. They perform a number of roles essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy.
• Elected legislatures are the principal forum for deliberating, debating, and passing laws in a representative democracy. They are not so-called rubber stamp parliaments merely approving the decisions of an authoritarian leader.

• Oversight and investigation powers allow legislators to publicly question government officials about their actions and decisions, and otherwise serve as a check on the power of various government ministries – especially in the presidential system of governing where the legislature is separate from the executive.

• Legislators may approve national budgets, conduct hearings on pressing issues, and confirm executive appointees to courts and ministries. In some democracies, legislative committees provide lawmakers a forum for these public examinations of national issues.

• Legislators may support the government in power or they may serve as a loyal political opposition that offers alternative policies and programs.

• Legislators have a responsibility to articulate their views as effectively as possible. But they must work within the democratic ethic of tolerance, respect, and compromise to reach agreements that will benefit the general welfare of all the people – not just their political supporters. Each legislator must alone decide on how to balance the general welfare with the needs of a local constituency.

• Legislators often provide constituents with a sympathetic hearing for their individual complaints and problems – along with help in getting assistance from large government bureaucracies. To do this, they often maintain a staff of trained aides.

• National legislators are usually elected in one of two ways. In plurality elections, sometimes called “first past the post,” the candidate with the most votes wins. In the proportional system, often used in parliamentary elections, voters usually cast ballots for parties, not individuals, and representatives are chosen on the basis of their party's percentage of the vote.

• A proportional system tends to encourage multiple, tightly organized smaller parties. Plurality elections encourage a looser, two-party system. Under either system, representatives engage in the debate, negotiation, coalition building, and compromise that are the hallmarks of democratic legislatures.

• Legislatures are often bicameral, with two chambers, and new laws generally require passage by both the upper and lower chambers.

(12)An Independent Judiciary

Independent and professional judges are the foundation of a fair, impartial, and constitutionally guaranteed system of courts of law known as the judiciary. This independence does not imply judges can make decisions based on personal preferences but rather that they are free to make lawful decisions – even if those decisions contradict the government or powerful parties involved in a case.

• In democracies, independence from political pressures of elected officials and legislatures guarantees the impartiality of judges. Judicial rulings should be impartial, based on the facts of a case, individual merits and legal arguments, and relevant laws, without any restrictions or improper influence by interested parties. These principles ensure equal legal protection for all.

• The power of judges to review public laws and declare them in violation of the nation's constitution serves as a fundamental check on potential government abuse of power – even if the government is elected by a popular majority. This power, however, requires that the courts be seen as independent and able to rest their decisions upon the law, not political considerations.

• Whether elected or appointed, judges must have job security or tenure, guaranteed by law, in order that they can make decisions without concern for pressure or attack by those in positions of authority. A civil society recognizes the importance of professional judges by providing them with adequate training and remuneration.

• Trust in the court system's impartiality – in its being seen as the "non-political" branch of government – is a principal source of its strength and legitimacy.

• A nation's courts, however, are no more immune from public commentary, scrutiny, and criticism than other institutions. Freedom of speech belongs to all: judges and their critics alike.

• To ensure their impartiality, judicial ethics require judges to step aside (or “recuse” themselves) from deciding cases in which they have a conflict of interest.

• Judges in a democracy cannot be removed for minor complaints, or in response to political criticism. Instead, they can be removed only for serious crimes or infractions through the lengthy and difficult procedure of impeachment (bringing charges) and trial – either in the legislature or before a separate court panel.

• An independent judiciary assures people that court decisions will be based on the nation's laws and constitution, not on shifting political power or the pressures of a temporary majority. Endowed with this independence, the judicial system in a democracy serves as a safeguard of the people's rights and freedoms.

(13) Constitutionalism

A written constitution contains the most important laws by which a nation's citizens agree to live, and it outlines the basic structure of their government. Thus, democratic constitutionalism – based on ideals of individual freedom, community rights, and limited government power – creates the framework for governing a democracy.

• Constitutionalism recognizes that democratic and accountable government must be coupled with constitutional limits on the power of government.

• A constitution defines the basic purposes and aspirations of a society, including the common welfare of the people.

• All laws must be written in accordance with the constitution. In a democracy, an independent judiciary allows citizens to challenge laws they believe to be illegal or unconstitutional and to seek court-ordered remedies for illegal actions by the government or its officials.

• A constitution provides the framework for government power – its scope of authority, mechanisms for exercising that authority, and the procedures for passage of future laws.

• A constitution defines citizenship and establishes the basis for deciding who shall have the right to vote.

• A constitution establishes the political, administrative, and judicial foundations of the state including the structure of the legislature and courts, requirements for holding elected office, and terms of office for elected officials.

• A constitution lays out responsibilities of government ministries and grants authority to collect taxes and create a national defense force.

• In a federal system, the constitution divides power among the various levels of government.

• Since a constitution is written at a certain point in time, it must be amendable so that it may adapt to the changing needs of the people in the future. Since the flexibility to meet unpredictable and unforeseeable challenges in the future is important, constitutions are usually written to specify general principles of government.

• Constitutions generally contain two different types of rights – negative and affirmative rights.
-- Negative rights tell the government what it cannot do. These rights limit government and prevent it from affecting certain behaviors of its citizens. For example, the government must refrain from limiting free speech and the ability of citizens to peacefully assemble, and from illegal imprisonment.
-- Affirmative rights tell the government what it must do and citizens what they are entitled to. Such "entitlements" may include social, economic, and cultural rights in the form of government guarantees of various social indicators. There may be guarantees of primary and secondary education for all boys and girls, guaranteed “well being” after retirement, or jobs and health care for all citizens.

(14) Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions.

According to democratic theorists, a free and open debate will usually lead to the best option being considered and will be more likely to avoid serious mistakes.

• Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable citizenry whose access to information enables it to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society and to criticize unwise or tyrannical government officials or policies. Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions.

• For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves – openly, publicly, and repeatedly; in speech and in writing.

• The principle of free speech should be protected by a democracy's constitution, preventing the legislative or executive branches of government from imposing censorship.

• The protection of free speech is a so-called negative right, simply requiring that government refrain from limiting speech, unlike the direct action required of other so-called affirmative rights. For the most part, the authorities in a democracy are uninvolved in the content of written and verbal speech in the society.

• Protests serve as a testing ground for any democracy – thus the right to peaceful assembly is essential and plays an integral part in facilitating the use of free speech. A civil society allows for spirited debate among those in deep disagreement over the issues.

• Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute, and cannot be used to justify violence, slander, libel, subversion, or obscenity. Consolidated democracies generally require a high degree of threat in order to justify banning speech which may incite violence, untruthfully harm the reputation of others, overthrow a constitutional government, or promote lewd behavior. Most democracies also forbid speech that incites racial or ethnic violence.

• The challenge for a democracy is one of balance: to defend freedom of speech and assembly while countering speech which truly encourages violence, intimidation, or subversion.

(15) Government Accountability

Government accountability means that public officials – elected and un-elected – have an obligation to explain their decisions and actions to the citizens. Government accountability is achieved through the use of a variety of mechanisms – political, legal, and administrative – designed to prevent corruption and ensure that public officials remain answerable and accessible to the people they serve. In the absence of such mechanisms, corruption may thrive.

• The primary political accountability mechanism is free and fair elections. Fixed-terms of office and elections force elected officials to account for their performance and provide opportunities for challengers to offer citizens alternative policy choices. If voters are not satisfied with the performance of an official, they may vote them out of office when their terms expire.

• The degree to which public officials are politically accountable is a function of whether they occupy an elected versus appointed position, how often they are up for reelection, and how many terms they can serve.

• Legal accountability mechanisms include constitutions, legislative acts, decrees, rules, codes, and other legal instruments that proscribe actions that public officials can and cannot take and how citizens may take action against those officials whose conduct is considered unsatisfactory.

• An independent judiciary is an essential requirement for the success of legal accountability, serving as a venue where citizens bring claims against the government.

• Legal accountability mechanisms include:
-- Ethics statutes and codes of conduct for public officials, outlining unacceptable practices;
-- Conflict of interest and financial disclosure laws, requiring public officials to divulge the source of their income and assets so that citizens may judge whether the actions of those officials are likely to be influenced improperly by financial interests;
-- "Sunshine" laws, providing the press and the public access to government records and meetings;
-- Citizen participation requirements, dictating that certain government decisions must include input from the public; and
-- Judicial review, providing courts the power to review the decisions and actions of public officials and agencies.

• Administrative accountability mechanisms include offices within agencies or ministries and practices within administrative processes designed to ensure that the decisions and actions of public officials account for the interest of the citizens.

• Administrative accountability mechanisms include:
-- Agency ombudsmen, responsible for hearing and addressing citizen complaints;
-- Independent auditors who scrutinize the use of public funds for signs of misuse;
-- Administrative courts, that hear citizens' complaints about agency decisions;
-- Ethics rules protecting so-called whistleblowers – those within government who speak out about corruption or abuse of official authority – from reprisals.

(16) Free and Fair Elections

Free and fair elections allow people living in a representative democracy to determine the political makeup and future policy direction of their nation's government.

• Free and fair elections increase the likelihood of a peaceful transfer of power. They help to ensure that losing candidates will accept the validity of the election's results and cede power to the new government.

• Elections alone do not assure democracy since dictators can use the resources of the state to tamper with the election process.

• Free and fair elections require:
-- Universal suffrage for all eligible men and women to vote – democracies do not restrict this right from minorities, the disabled, or give it only to those who are literate or who own property.
-- Freedom to register as a voter or run for public office.
-- Freedom of speech for candidates and political parties – democracies do not restrict candidates or political parties from criticizing the performance of the incumbent.
-- Numerous opportunities for the electorate to receive objective information from a free press.
-- Freedom to assemble for political rallies and campaigns.
-- Rules that require party representatives to maintain a distance from polling places on election day – election officials, volunteer poll workers, and international monitors may assist voters with the voting process but not the voting choice.
-- An impartial or balanced system of conducting elections and verifying election results – trained election officials must either be politically independent or those overseeing elections should be representative of the parties in the election.
-- Accessible polling places, private voting space, secure ballot boxes, and transparent ballot counting.
-- Secret ballots – voting by secret ballot ensures that an individual's choice of party or candidate cannot be used against him or her.
-- Legal prohibitions against election fraud – enforceable laws must exist to prevent vote tampering (e.g. double counting, ghost voting).
-- Recount and contestation procedures – legal mechanisms and processes to review election processes must be established to ensure that elections were conducted properly.

• Voting methods – varying by country and even within countries – include:
-- Paper ballots – votes are marked on or punched through paper.
-- Ballots with pictures of candidates or party symbols so that illiterate citizens may cast the correct vote.
-- Electronic systems – voters use touch-screen or push-button machines.
-- Absentee ballots – allowing those who will not be able to vote on election day to cast their ballots prior to the election.

(17) Freedom of Religion

All citizens should be free to follow their conscience in matters of religious faith. Freedom of religion includes the right to worship alone or with others, in public or private, and to participate in religious observance, practice, and teaching without fear of persecution from government or other groups in society.

• All people have the right to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places for these purposes.

• Like other fundamental human rights, religious freedom is not created or granted by the state, but all states should protect it. Democracies include language pertaining to protection of religious freedom in their constitutions.

• Although many democracies may choose to recognize an official separation of church and state, the values of government and religion are not in fundamental conflict.

• Democracies generally do not create governmental agencies or other official bodies to regulate religious affairs, although they may require houses of worship and religious groups to register for administrative or tax purposes.

• Governments that protect religious freedom for all their citizens are more likely to protect other rights necessary for religious freedom, such as free speech and assembly.

• Genuine democracies recognize that individual religious differences must be respected and that a key role of government is to protect religious choice, even in cases where the state sanctions a particular religious faith. Democracies also:
-- Do not determine the content of religious publications, education, or sermons.
-- Respect the right of parents to direct the religious education of their children.
-- Prohibit incitement of religious-based violence against others.
-- Protect members of ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities.
-- Allow people to observe days of rest associated with their faith and to celebrate holy days in accordance with their beliefs.
-- Allow interfaith movements to flourish, as members of different faiths seek common ground on various issues and cooperate to solve challenges facing the entire population.
-- Provide the freedom for government and religious officials, nongovernmental organizations, and journalists to investigate reports of religious persecution.
-- Respect the right of religious organizations to freely participate and contribute to civil society – to operate faith-based schools, run hospitals and care for the aged, and create other programs and activities that benefit the society.

(18) The Rights of Women and Girls

Discrimination against women means that specific laws or practices create a distinction, exclusion, or restriction on the basis of gender.

• Democracies should strive to protect women's rights, encourage women's participation in all aspects of society and government, and create places for women to associate freely and express their views openly.

• Legal rights for women include equal representation under the law and access to legal resources.
-- Women's rights must be clearly stated – ambiguity of women's legal status remains a leading cause of poverty worldwide.
-- Women should have rights to ownership and inheritance.
-- Women should have the opportunity to take part in the drafting and implementation of constitutions and legislation.

• Women's political rights include the right to vote in elections, to run for public office, to participate in government, and to organize politically.
-- Democracies should support civil society initiatives – public and nongovernmental –  that teach women how to vote and train them in political campaign techniques and the legislative process.
-- Women's activism at all levels of civil society and government strengthens democracies.

• Women and girls should have access to primary education. They should not be barred from attending or teaching in secondary schools and universities.

• Economic rights give women control over their economic assets and help them avoid risky sexual and abusive relationships. These rights include:
-- The same employment opportunities and criteria as men.
-- Protection from job termination because of pregnancy or marriage.
-- Participation in programs, such as microenterprise lending and vocational training, that enable women to generate income.
-- The right to equal pay and to equal treatment and respect at work.

• Democracies should strive to ensure the health and well-being of women and girls and provide equal access to programs such as:
-- General health care, disease prevention, and prenatal care.
-- Preventing HIV/AIDS, improving health care delivery to those infected, and reducing mother-to-child transmission of the disease.
-- Combating traffickers who lure women and girls into forced prostitution or domestic servitude through deception, fraud, or coercion.
-- Fighting so-called sex tourism that often exploits women and children.
-- Educating families about the social and health consequences of early marriage.
-- Supporting victims' organizations, including domestic violence and rape crisis centers.
-- Training police, lawyers, judges, and medical personnel to reduce domestic violence.

(19) Governing by Coalitions and Compromise

Every society has (or includes) groups of people with differing views on subjects of importance to all citizens. A liberal democracy recognizes this as a benefit to the nation and thus supports tolerance for and expression of different points of view.

• Democratic governments succeed when politicians and officials understand that complex issues rarely present solutions that are clearly "right" or "wrong" and that differing interpretations of democratic principles and social priorities exist.

• Freedom of assembly and the press foster open debate and exchange of ideas. This openness allows a government to identify problems and permits groups to meet and resolve differences. (In the private sector, this same "marketplace of ideas" offers opportunities for innovation and investment that are the engines of economic growth.)

• Coalitions are formed when interest groups or political parties join together on issues of common interest, even if they strongly disagree on other issues. Compromise on important decisions allows the government to go about the business of governing.

• Legislative bodies in democracies rely on coalition-building to pass laws:
-- In a parliamentary system, political groups form partnerships with other groups to promote their own interests and form governments.
-- In a presidential system, lawmakers sometimes cross party boundaries to vote on issues they and their constituents care deeply about.
-- Coalitions often require that a political party be willing to put aside certain differences with other groups in order to achieve more important parts of their agendas.
-- Because coalition governments are made up from parties representing sometimes-opposing viewpoints, there does exist the potential for dissolution of the government. In some democracies, it is common for ruling coalitions to form and disband several times, even in a single year.

(20) Role of Nongovernmental Organizations

In democracies, ordinary citizens may organize independent groups that serve the needs of the community or nation they live in and complement, supplement, or even challenge the work of the government. Such organizations are often called nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, because they are not an extension of the government's offices.

• NGOs allow citizens to improve their society by advocating, educating, and mobilizing attention around major public issues and monitoring the conduct of government and private enterprise.

• NGOs enable citizens from different backgrounds to learn to work together and build the skills, relationships, and trust necessary for good government.

• NGOs serve a great variety of citizen interests. They may act as social service providers, advocates for the environment or for living standards, work standards, or as the catalysts for democratic change.

• NGOs often represent the interests of those citizens who might otherwise be left out of national policy debates. They open the public discourse to people of all economic and social classes and to women and minorities.

• Funding for NGOs may come from individual private donations, private trusts and philanthropies, corporations, religious institutions, international institutions, other NGOs, sales of goods and services, and even governments.

• Governments and NGOs frequently work as partners. NGOs may provide local and regional expertise and personnel on the ground for implementation of government-funded projects. NGOs may be politically unaffiliated, or they may be based on partisan ideals and seek to advance a particular cause or set of causes in the public interest. In either model the key point is that NGOs should operate under minimal political control of states.

• NGOs develop local and international programs in virtually all areas that contribute to the promotion of the principles of democracy, including:
-- Human rights – by promoting international standards and monitoring for violations and abuses.
-- Rule of law – through low-cost or free legal aid, educating all citizens regarding their rights, and advocating for legal reforms.
-- Women's participation – by preparing them for political participation and protecting them from socioeconomic discrimination.
-- Civic education – through education programs focusing on the role of the citizen in a democratic and diverse society.
-- A free press – by promoting independent media, training journalists, and setting standards for ethical journalism.
-- Political party development – through election monitoring by trained domestic observers and nonpartisan voter registration drives.
-- Government accountability – by conducting policy analysis and serving as watchdogs over governmental actions.

(21) Education and Democracy

Education is a universal human right. It also is a means of achieving other human rights and it is an empowering social and economic tool. Through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world's nations have agreed that everyone has the right to education.

• Every society transmits its habits of mind, social norms, culture, and ideals from one generation to the next. There is a direct connection between education and democratic values: in democratic societies, educational content and practice support habits of democratic governance.

• This educational transmission process is vital in a democracy because effective democracies are dynamic, evolving forms of government that demand independent thinking by the citizenry. The opportunity for positive social and political change rests in citizens' hands. Governments should not view the education system as a means to control information and to indoctrinate students.

• Governments should value and devote resources to education just as they strive to defend their citizens.

• Literacy enables people to stay informed through newspapers and books. Informed citizens are in a better position to improve their democracy.

• Education systems in democracies do not preclude study of other political doctrines or systems of government. Democracies encourage students to develop reasonable arguments based on careful research and a clear understanding of history.

• Private and religious groups should be free to create schools or parents may choose to teach their children at home.

• Government-run schooling must be equally accessible to all citizens regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds, gender, or physical disabilities.

• Democratic norms and practices should be taught in order for people to understand and appreciate their opportunities and responsibilities as free citizens.

• Education for democratic citizenship includes knowledge of national and world history and of basic democratic principles.

• School curricula in democracies include history, geography, economics, literature, philosophy, law, the arts, social studies, mathematics, and science courses available to all students – girls and boys.

• Students should also be free to organize clubs and activities where democratic norms can be put into practice. For example,
-- Student government gives pupils experience in the democratic process.
-- Mock elections teach students about citizen participation and encourage in them lifelong voting habits.
-- School newspapers educate students about the role of a free media and responsible journalism.


Source: http://www.america.gov/publications/books/principles-of-democracy.html