No, it’s just the lowest common denominator and that is why it is useful. It’s the yes\no-question that allows us to start. Every other factor that has been named in this thread depicts the “Quality of Democracy” and these can be contradictory. There can be different types of democracy focusing on different things. A lot of elections gives more powers to the voters, but means perpetual campaigning and can lead to volatility. The ability to implement changes fast runs counter to checks and balances of any kind. Deliberations allow more influence to those who have time (retirees versus young mums).
No, there is no best democracy, so all the stuff about free and fair elections and freedom of speech is nice, but situational. I wouldn’t pull of points from Germany as their freedom of speech-law doesn’t allow “Nazi-Stuff”. But any comparison inevitably runs into this problem. What is the “best” Democracy? I don’t know. But I know many democracies right now lack inclusive elements as has been mentioned so far as the “understanding of Democracy on the left”. More fairness is the way to go, but it doesn’t mean such uninclusive regimes are undemocratic.
Democracy is also not confined to the political sphere and national politics. Think about your Family, your Workplace, School or your friends. You did have situations where you voted on stuff. That is democracy as well. The political sphere needs to dock onto this experiences and not just be a “ just tick these boxes every four years”-kind of thing.
And a little last point out of logical order: Separation of Powers as the core factor for Democracies doesn’t work: You can have a state with a king as the executive, Barons as the legislative and ecclestical law as the juidicative - that wouldn’t make it a Democracy. To be fair this is also true for my “peaceful transition of power” argument - they are all necessary, but not sufficient conditions.
yes
Democracy is also not confined to the political sphere and national politics. Think about your Family, your Workplace, School or your friends. You did have situations where you voted on stuff. That is democracy as well. The political sphere needs to dock onto this experiences and not just be a “ just tick these boxes every four years”-kind of thing.
This is what I feel is especially important
Just ticking every 4-5 year boxes is a consumerist interface with the politics part of democracy.
Ordinary simple volunteer activities are for me the base of participative democracy.
The amount of hours of volunteer activities in regions a measure of how much "total democracy" there is.
Starting with the humble road:
You can be member of a volleybalclub and train and play competition.
You can also take your turn of being a referee (each team on average needs after all to supply a referee to the club, to the competion)(and yes you need the courses and time to get schooled as qualified referee). And if being referee is not your thing, you can become the guy taking care the all volleyballs are pumped up all the time to the right pressure and all that stuff.
You can be a parent of children at a primary school.
You can also be one of the parents who goes to school between 12.00 and 13.00 to luncch together with those children who cannot go home for lunch because both parents work. And yes grandparents or people without a job or partially disabled can join in as well.
Nothing fancy. Not in the boards of clubs, the "management" and "politician" level. Just doing your bit.
etc, etc.
And yes... there is always influence attached to activities.
And if the general yearly member meeting decides with nose counting "democracy" crazy things... volunteers will vote with their feet.
"The strongest shoulders should bear the heaviest weights"
And talents you have, whatever they are... is there not some innerly urge to also grant them to the people around you ?
Democracy is a fabric.
