Who Voted For Democracy? Trivia Quiz

Answer: There is a fusion of power between the executive and legislative branches

In a parliamentary system, the legislature (Parliament) and the executive are tied together; specifically, the executive is the head of the majority party in the legislature, and s/he appoints government ministers from other members of Parliament in that party (or coalition, if multiple parties team up to form a majority). A common system of parliamentary government, called the Westminster model, is based off of the British Parliament, which has a bicameral (two-chambered) legislature, specific named candidates who run for the legislature, and more active debate. This system appears in many nations once colonized or influenced by Britain. The majority party in a parliamentary system wields power mostly un-opposable by the opposition as long as it retains a majority: it passes and implements policy freely, and members rarely conflict with the party in power. This results in less "gridlock." Through a vote of no confidence, a party in power can be removed if less than half of members of Parliament agree with the majority's policies.

On the contrary, a presidential system has true separation between executive and legislative offices, with a president elected more or less directly by the people (in the US, a presidential system, the Electoral College technically elects the president), and legislators elected in separate elections. A presidential system opens up the possibility for divided government, where the president and legislature are controlled by different parties. This often leads to inefficiency, because policy adoption and implementation requires cooperation between the two factions. One benefit of presidential systems over parliamentary ones is the closer access of the chief executive to the people. Citizens don't directly elect prime ministers in parliamentary systems, making that office less democratic.

The UK is an excellent example of a parliamentary democracy, while Mexico and the US are presidential systems. Other countries, like Russia, Israel, and France, have a mix of the systems, with both a president and prime minister whose relative powers vary by country.

Answer: Third parties can be better represented in government.

Proportional representation (PR) allows a party's representation in the legislature to be equal to its percentage of the total vote in a national vote. Thus, in Belgium's 2010 parliamentary elections, the N-VA party won about 17% of the vote and was rewarded with 27 out of 150 seats in the legislature. Generally, PR requires that a party win some low threshold (often around 5%) of votes to earn any representation at all, but it favors small, regional, or fringe parties that have broad popular support in a given area with representation. PR schemes often use party lists on ballots rather than specific candidates, and then the party selects the representatives once they have been apportioned. In some ways, this is beneficial: it often leads to more minority and female representation in legislatures.

Plurality voting (also known as winner-take-all or first-past-the-post) allows just one candidate from a given district to be represented. Because of this, small parties which lack broad enough popular support to win outright in multiple areas find it difficult to gain representation. Plurality favors two-party systems. The US and UK both use plurality voting, which is responsible for the dominance of Conservative and Labour in Parliament (despite fairly broad public support for the Liberal Democrats), and even more so for the polarized Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress. Most plurality systems are just that: candidates must simply win a plurality of votes to take office. One exception is France, where a candidate must go to a runoff to secure victory by earning an absolute majority.

Plurality systems do have the benefit of strictly and openly enforcing the idea of "one man, one vote" since only one person can win, and they usually prevent radicalization, since successful parties have to appeal to a wide audience. However, they have their faults, such as allowing for gerrymandering (redrawing district maps to suit the political purpose of the party in power) and limiting the importance of some people's votes. For example, because the American state of Alabama nearly always voted Republican in the late twentieth century, a Democrat in the area had no ability to contribute his vote to Democratic representatives.

Answer: Pluralism

A linkage institution is any mechanism by which citizens can communicate their opinions to policymakers; examples include elections, media, and of course, interest groups. Interest groups are usually organized around a specific issue (environmental protection, free use of firearms, funding for education, and any number of other topics), and it's critical for a successful democracy to have these linkages to the people. In presidential systems, an interest group may lobby individual legislators to support its specific issue. In parliamentary systems, it's generally more useful to lobby the party itself, since legislators rarely back away from the official party platform.

In a pluralist system, therefore, interest groups and political parties compete with each other to get their agendas implemented. There's only so much policy you can get passed, after all, so certain groups will be more successful than others. Although pluralism is usually considered a good thing, some political scientists have criticized its effectiveness. According to the elite and class theory, only wealthy and powerful groups really have any power of policymaking, a view that C. Wright Mills explored in his 1956 book "The Power Elite." Another formulation suggests that groups have such a hold over government that the conflicting voices prevent effective policymaking because of so many ties and responsibilities--this is called "hyperpluralism."

The opposite of pluralism is corporatism: in this situation, certain groups are officially recognized by the government and given a seat at the policymaking table. The other interest groups are left out in the rain, unfortunately. Great examples of corporatism include Mexico before 1985 and Mussolini's Italy.

Answer: Patronage

Patronage is just one way in which a bureaucracy, sometimes called the "fourth" branch of government, is set up. Sociologist Max Weber famously compared the unemotional, calculated actions of a bureaucracy to an "iron cage," and identified several characteristics of them, including hierarchy of authority, impersonality, and efficiency (this last one might not commonly be accepted!).

Another of Weber's criteria for a bureaucracy is employment based on merit, and although this is common in developed countries, less democratic systems often resort to a patronage system.

The Soviet Union, for example, used "nomenklatura," a system in which the Politburo selected members of the Communist Party for bureaucratic employment, even if they lacked technical expertise.

Other nations had their equivalents: in Nigeria, it is called prebendalism; in China, guanxi; in the Philippines, it is called the "Padrino" system.

Answer: The power of a judiciary to rule actions of the other two branches of government unconstitutional

Judicial review is itself a consequence of separation of powers, which keeps the traditional powers of government (making, enforcing, interpreting laws) to separate political institutions. It gives the judiciary power to overrule laws passed by the legislature or actions done by the executive if they go against a nation's constitution or another higher legal authority. Judicial review promotes the power of the judiciary, which traditionally is less powerful than the other branches of government, since it can't directly pass or implement laws.

Judicial review isn't necessary for a successful democracy, but it helps. The 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison granted the Supreme Court power of judicial review. On the other hand, the United Kingdom flourished with fusion of powers up to the turn of the 21st century, and formed a consolidated democracy. Because the UK doesn't have a written constitution, judicial review would have been mostly impossible. However, pressure from supranational organizations like the EU forced the nation to create a judiciary independent of Parliament's House of Lords, with very limited powers of judicial review mostly relevant to European law.

Answer: Federal

Federalism is the constitutional division of power between national and sub-national governments. In this way, it contrasts with "devolution," which is the temporary granting of authority to a local government which isn't constitutionally ordained. A country that isn't federal, with weak local governments, is called unitary. A country without a powerful national government and extremely strong sub-national governments is called a confederation. The United States, Brazil, and Canada are federal. The UK, China, and Iran are unitary. Switzerland is an example of a confederation.

Federalism is useful because it decentralizes politics and policies. There are more governments, so people have greater levels of access to government. Furthermore, in a geographically or demographically-varied country, federalism allows state governments to apply different policies to different areas. For example, in the US, what Massachusetts does in its state government can be different than what Texas does. This also allows state governments room for innovation in politics (the so-called "laboratory of democracy"), such as a new tax or infrastructure project before it is implemented on a national scale.

Federalism has its drawbacks though. There is often confusion over which sphere of government is responsible for acting. Also, it often creates asymmetry in terms of economic success. One area of the country which is governed better and is endowed with more natural resources may prosper economically while citizens of other states can't take advantage of those resources.

Answer: Free market capitalism

It isn't a sweeping truism, but generally speaking, successful democracies in the modern world have capitalist economies. The converse is true. Most capitalist economies are democratic. Why?

In his 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman noted that economic freedom is often a necessary precondition for political freedom. If the government owns all means of production, then dissent is naturally repressed since the people rely on political authority for employment. Another reason is that free markets allow for the development of a substantial middle class, which can oppose state authority if it has its own economic resources.

States with plentiful natural resources can become democratic, but it is a more difficult path. A nation with lots of, say, oil, does not need to rely on taxation to secure its economic ends. Taxation actually promotes democracy because it forms a link between the people and the government. In response for paying taxes, people expect the government to invest in infrastructure or provide for social welfare. In a one-resource state, or one in which other nations "rent" out resources for their own use, these ties never develop and there's no spark for democracy.

Economic freedom often leads to political freedom in that order. Thus, China's economic reforms, rapidly trending toward free markets in the late 20th/early 21st century have lead to growing political liberalization as well. This can be seen through the development of commercial courts and the growing empowerment of the media.

Answer: Women's clubs

Civil society is somewhat of a paradox--it indicates that a government has transitioned to democracy chiefly by the lack of government involvement. Civil society consists of social activity outside the scope of government, business, and the economy (usually, the definition includes family as well). Thus, it can be extended to professional organizations (doctors' groups, for example), religious organizations and charities, unions, community civic projects, and other means by which citizens interact privately.

These associations are a sign of a healthy political culture. Societies that lack civil society also lack citizen political involvement and usually have the national government over-powerful in the realm of civilians' affairs.

Answer: Illiberal democracy

According to Fareed Zakaria's book "The Future of Freedom," an illiberal democracy is one that has elections, but restricts individual rights, such as free speech, press, and assembly. By the end of the twentieth century, nearly every country in the world possessed a form of democracy, through popular elections. Yet many remained authoritarian in character. Zakaria's book focuses especially on Russia and China, which, despite some political adaptations, lack the liberal character of Western democracies.

The major characteristics of a liberal democracy are competition, in which multiple factions can challenge in competitive, free elections, and transparency, where citizens can see the policymaking process and political decisions. An illiberal democracy lacks these characteristics. Unlike an autocracy, it provides some form of democracy through elections.

However, they might be corrupt or, in the case of China, elect a legislative body that hardly wields any authority at all.

Answer: Strong military

Max Weber classified legitimacy into three categories: charismatic legitimacy derived from a powerful leader or leaders, traditional legitimacy built on history, and rational-legal legitimacy derived from popular perception of a fair, representative election. Many modern democracies have rational-legal legitimacy, which itself consists of the rule of law (those in power are accountable to law). However, other forms of legitimacy are important too. Traditional legitimacy has been influential since the pharaohs of Egypt up through Britain's constitution-less present. British citizens trust that the government won't commit gross, indecent violations of their rights, so the government has legitimacy.

It should be noted that legitimacy isn't just a characteristic of democracies: through history, the Chinese emperor had the "Mandate of Heaven" as his right to rule. Joseph Stalin was charismatic enough that his rule could be seen as legitimate, even though his ascent to power was anything but democratic, and he certainly did not submit to rule of law. Many authoritarian countries will nonetheless offer elections because they provide the semblance of legitimacy to the populace, even if they don't affect the policymaking process in the slightest.

Without legitimacy, a government is often too weak to act. Citizens don't obey laws and, in extreme cases, may resort to violence because they feel their beliefs aren't effective.