Two Models Of Democracy, Majoritarian And Consensual

is to meet in large groups. Due to the fear of high tension, many citizens

Direct democracy is a type of government system that allows the citizens to vote on laws and select officials directly. Direct democracy is similar to representative democracy, in which representative democracy allows the people to elect those representatives who govern and pass laws; also known as a republic. The differences between direct democracy and a republic are, in direct democracy citizens vote and to pass laws, where in a representative democracy the officials that the citizens elected make those decisions on their behalf. In a constitutional democracy the government enforces limits on those who govern the laws, and it allows the voice of the people to be heard through free, fair, and frequent elections. A constitutional democracy

The majoritarian electoral democracy, gives the people the power and/or right to participate directly in a political part and to self-represent. Followed by Abraham Lincoln’s famous slogan “ of the people, by the people, for the people”. The majoritarian political system, influence whether or not a person vote for a particular candidate or a particular party. This is known as the elections. Where the citizen has been giving the opportunity to choose a single person based on ones on belief or a whole party ( Ex; in the U.S we have two major parties from where we can choose on , democratic party and republican party. Among others single small parties). We called it Economic Elite Domination when the minority or small portion of a party gets the

Similar to the consensus model the majoritarian model of governance aims to govern for the people, however, the majoritarian model believes the non-governing party should always oppose (Lijphart 30). This form of governance indicates that once a party is not elected into office, their ideas for ruling should be excluded from all forms of governance. This form of governing excludes a large portion of the population, not only the members of the opposition but as well as the people who voted for the opposing

A democratic republic, while it is definitely the better system, is closer to tyranny than a pure democracy. Little would get done if everything was a vote, however, no one would ever do something tyrannical. There is a lot more corruption and tyranny in the republic system because certain people gain power when in a pure democracy, everyone has the same power and will be able to have an input on everything. However, a pure democracy would be very inefficient, putting everything to a vote would take forever and there would be a lot of disputes. A democratic republic gives the power to the people without being inefficient.

A democracy is when the common people are considered as the primary source of political power. Although democracy and absolutism had advantages and disadvantages, democracy was a more effective type of government for it limited royal power and protected the rights of the people socially, politically, and economically. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, tension arose between the two different types of governments, the democracy and absolute monarchs.

(hook): 5000 to 6000 men were narrowed down to a group of 500, who would then be divided into groups of 50.

In the reading “ Patterns of democracy” Lijphart states there are five different dimensions of the majoritarian-consensus typology which are based not only on characteristics of the party system, electoral system and government coalitions, but on federal vs. unitary traits as well. The first characteristic of Lijphart’s five dimensions is closely related with the majoritarian system in that it consists of a one party cabinet concentration of power versus a multiparty sharing

Throughout world history different forms of political systems have been conjured and used, in the hopes of finding the right one. During the l16th and 17th century Europe went through economic catastrophes and violent wars, an absolute monarchy was one of the many trial and error solutions used to search for a way to create more order in society. As Europe created nation-states, the divine power and extreme wealth of the absolute monarchs controlled countries such as Russia and France. While in England the political system was more centralized, attempts were made to limit royal power and protected the rights of the governed. There has always been a battle of which political system worked better. Studies have shown that both absolutism and democracy have their advantages and disadvantages. There are various differences and similarities between the development of the nation-state ruled by an absolute monarch like in France and in a democratic government like in England.

According to Anthony Downs, economist and author of An Economic Theory of Democracy, a system of proportional representation, gives voters more options in regards to choosing a president and political party, and influences the formation of coalitions which allows for an increase in voter turnout (142). However, this system caused a different outcome among the French people. In fact, voter turnout was at all-time low due to dissatisfaction with the government. Members of parliament were forced to form coalitions with smaller parties that they had nothing in common with. It was very easy for the small parties, which were usually poorly organized, to hold the balance of power because there had to be compromise in order for important decisions to be made. There was a predominance of the MRP, Socialists and Communists in the party system. This made it even more difficult for political stability to ensue. In addition to miscommunication and a lack of compromise among the parties within the coalition governments, tensions created by the cold war allowed for the rightist, RPF party to rise to power, tearing the leftist coalition

It would seem to most observers France would fit into Robert Dahl's definition of a pluralist democracy. You have multiple power centers competing and open elections for the

     France, which is the largest nation in Western Europe, is a presidential republic. France is a very important nation in Europe and it continues to be involved in contemporary policy issues. Helping the world as one of the great trading nations, France is a very important trading partner with the United States. Not only is France important to the United States, they are also important to countries all over the world. Their abundance of both mineral and agricultural resources make them a very important supplier of products all over the world. I chose to report on France because it is an interesting county and I wanted to learn more about it.

Democracy varies in every country depending on the type of government or regime they have. There is the liberal democracy, which is all about giving people their rights and liberties; everything is done through fair voting and electing. The people are aware of everything that happens in their government. Illiberal democracies are basically the same as liberal, but the people in power are more secretive of their activities, and there is less civil liberty. It is essentially a partial democracy. Now Authoritarian regimes designate any political system that concentrates power in the hands of one leader or a small elite. There are no free elections and very little regard for the law. Political institutions, social structures, and the democratic rule of law all affect liberal, illiberal, and authoritarian regimes democratic quality differently.

Winston Churchill once remarked that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. In agreement with his statement, this paper will examine the problems of democratic governments using specific examples, and compare it to the failure of fascist governments in Nazi Germany and Italy and communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

However, more recently different voting systems have been used by devolved powers throughout the U.K – like the Scottish parliament -- as well as for other votes such as the European Parliament. (Ministry of Justice, 2008, pp. 24-25) These different voting systems are based on proportional representation, a term which characterises various types of electoral system, but share one main idea – the proportion of votes received correlates directly with the amount of seats a party wins. As democracy has become more widespread, other countries within Europe have naturally developed different electoral systems. Particularly, France is one of the few other countries in Europe who practice a very similar type of electoral system as the United Kingdom. The majority of countries in Europe, such as Germany, favour systems with an element of proportional representation.