american democracy essay

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The One Idea That Could Save American Democracy

By Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt-Hendrix

Ms. Taylor and Ms. Hunt-Hendrix are political organizers and the authors of the book “Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea.”

These days, we often hear that democracy is on the ballot. And there’s a truth to that: Winning elections is critical, especially as liberal and progressive forces try to fend off radical right-wing movements. But the democratic crisis that our society faces will not be solved by voting alone. We need to do more than defeat Donald Trump and his allies — we need to make cultivating solidarity a national priority.

For years, solidarity’s strongest associations have been with the left and the labor movement — a term invoked at protests and on picket lines. But its roots are much deeper, and its potential implications far more profound, than we typically assume. Though we rarely speak about it as such, solidarity is a concept as fundamental to democracy as its better-known cousins: equality, freedom and justice. Solidarity is simultaneously a bond that holds society together and a force that propels it forward. After all, when people feel connected, they are more willing to work together, to share resources and to have one another’s backs. Solidarity weaves us into a larger and more resilient “we” through the precious and powerful sense that even though we are different, our lives and our fates are connected.

We have both spent years working as organizers and activists . If our experience has taught us anything, it is that a sense of connection and mutualism is rarely spontaneous. It must be nurtured and sustained. Without robust and effective organizations and institutions to cultivate and maintain solidarity, it weakens and democracy falters. We become more atomized and isolated, suspicious and susceptible to misinformation, more disengaged and cynical, and easily pitted against one another.

Democracy’s opponents know this. That’s why they invest huge amounts of energy and resources to sabotage transformative, democratic solidarity and to nurture exclusionary and reactionary forms of group identity. Enraged at a decade of social movements and the long-overdue revival of organized labor, right-wing strategists and their corporate backers have redoubled their efforts to divide and conquer the American public, inflaming group resentments in order to restore traditional social hierarchies and ensure that plutocrats maintain their hold on wealth and power. In white papers, stump speeches and podcasts, conservative ideologues have laid out their vision for capturing the state and using it as a tool to remake our country in their image.

If we do not prioritize solidarity, this dangerous and anti-democratic project will succeed. Far more than just a slogan or hashtag, solidarity can orient us toward a future worth fighting for, providing the basis of a credible and galvanizing plan for democratic renewal. Instead of the 20th-century ideal of a welfare state, we should try to imagine a solidarity state.

We urgently need a countervision of what government can and should be, and how public resources and infrastructure can be deployed to foster social connection and repair the social fabric so that democracy can have a chance not just to limp along, but to flourish. Solidarity, here, is both a goal worth reaching toward and the method of building the power to achieve it. It is both means and ends, the forging of social bonds so that we can become strong enough to shift policy together.

Historically, the question of solidarity has been raised during volatile junctures like the one we are living through. Contemporary conceptions of solidarity first took form after the democratic revolutions of the 18th century and over the course of the Industrial Revolution. As kings were deposed and the church’s role as a moral authority waned, philosophers and citizens wondered how society could cohere without a monarch or god. What could bind people in a secular, pluralistic age?

The 19th-century thinkers who began seriously contemplating and writing about the idea of solidarity often used the image of the human body, where different parts work in tandem. Most famously, the French sociologist Émile Durkheim put solidarity at the center of his inquiry, arguing that as society increased in complexity, social bonds between people would strengthen, each person playing a specialized role while connected to a larger whole. Solidarity and social cohesion, he argued, would be the natural result of increasing social and economic interdependence. But as Durkheim himself would eventually recognize, the industrial economy that he initially imagined would generate solidarity would actually serve to weaken its fragile ties, fostering what he called anomie, the corrosive hopelessness that accompanied growing inequality.

In the United States, solidarity never achieved the same intellectual cachet as in Europe. Since this nation’s founding, the concept has generally been neglected, and the practice actively suppressed and even criminalized. Attempts to forge cross-racial solidarity have met with violent suppression time and again, and labor organizing, effectively outlawed until the New Deal era, still occupies hostile legal ground. Decades of market-friendly policies, promoted by Republicans and Democrats alike, have undermined solidarity in ways both subtle and overt, from encouraging us to see ourselves as individual consumers rather than citizens to fostering individualism and competition over collectivity and cooperation.

As our profit-driven economy has made us more insecure and atomized — and more susceptible to authoritarian appeals — the far right has seized its opportunity. A furious backlash now rises to cut down the shoots of solidarity that sprung up as a result of recent movements pushing for economic, racial, environmental and gender justice. In response, programs that encourage diversity and inclusion are being targeted by billionaire investors, while small acts of solidarity — like helping someone get an abortion or bailing protesters out of jail — have been criminalized.

Awaiting the return of Mr. Trump, the Heritage Foundation has mapped out a plan to remake government and society, using the full power of the state to roll back what it calls “the Great Awokening” and restore a Judeo-Christian, capitalist “culture of life” and “blessedness.” “Woke” has been turned into a pejorative so that the word can be wielded to tarnish and break the solidarity that people have only just begun to experience.

Our vision of a solidarity state offers a pointed rejoinder to this project. Social democrats and socialists have been right to emphasize the need for redistribution and robust public investment in goods and services. We must restructure our economy so that it works for the many and not the few. But unlike conservatives — think, for example, of Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister of Britain who in 1981 said, “Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul” — liberals and leftists have tended to downplay the role of policy in shaping public sensibilities. This is a mistake.

Laws and social programs not only shape material outcomes; they also shape us, informing public perceptions and preferences, and generating what scholars call policy feedback loops. There is no neutral state to aspire to. Policies can either foster solidarity and help repair the divides that separate us or deepen the fissures.

Today, the American welfare state too often does the latter. As sociologists including Suzanne Mettler and Matthew Desmond have detailed, lower-income people tend to be stigmatized for needing assistance, while more-affluent citizens reap a range of benefits that are comparatively invisible, mainly through tax credits and tax breaks. Both arrangements — the highly visible and stigmatized aid to the poor and the more invisible and socially acceptable aid to the affluent — serve to foster resentment and obscure how we are all dependent on the state in various ways.

Instead of treating citizens as passive and isolated recipients of services delivered from on high, a solidarity state would experiment with creative ways of fostering connection and participation at every opportunity for more Americans. What if we had basic guarantees that were universal rather than means-tested programs that distinguish between the deserving and undeserving, stigmatizing some and setting groups apart? What if, following the model of a widely admired program in Canada, the government aided groups of private citizens who want to sponsor and subsidize migrants and refugees? What if public schools, post offices, transit systems, parks, public utilities and jobs programs were explicitly designed to facilitate social connection and solidarity in addition to providing essential support and services?

We’ll get there only if we take up the challenge of building solidarity from wherever we happen to sit. Both means and end, solidarity can be a source of power, built through the day-to-day work of organizing, and our shared purpose. Solidarity is the essential and too often missing ingredient of today’s most important political project: not just saving democracy but creating an egalitarian, multiracial society that can guarantee each of us a dignified life.

Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt-Hendrix are political organizers and the authors of the book “Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Section 1: Principles of the American Republic

The two most important documents in the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (from 1776) and the United States Constitution (from 1787). The Declaration of Independence lays out the core ideals behind and the political philosophy of the United States. The U.S. Constitution creates practical structures and rules both for the federal government and state governments.

Both the Declaration and U.S. Constitution can be read in less than an hour, and are essential reading for all citizens. Pocket versions of these texts are widely distributed by civic groups and are an especially convenient way to read them. Find out more about ordering United States and Arizona pocket constitutions here and view Arizona's Constitution here

Access Section 1 Full Curriculum.

Review the flashcards. 

Take the quiz.

Section 1: Principles of American Democracy Study Guide

Section 1.1: the u.s. constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, establishing the federal government, defining that government’s powers and structures, and protecting the basic rights of all Americans.

The Constitution creates the form of government we have in the United States, which is a constitutional and federal republic. A constitutional republic means that it is one in which, rather than directly governing, the people select some of their members to temporarily serve in political office; the constitutional part means that both the citizens and their governing officials are bound to follow the rules established in that Constitution. A federal republic is one in which a federal government is given only limited powers for limited purposes, while state governments retain most powers of government.  The Constitution describes this division of power, establishing which specific powers have been given to the federal government, while reiterating that most remain with the state governments.

The Constitution’s status as supreme law of the land works in two ways. As long as an action of the federal government is authorized by the Constitution, that action supersedes any state or local law with which it might conflict. But not every action by the federal government is supreme-- federal activity must also follow from the Constitution or it too would be illegal.

Building off the ideas of self-government and “the consent of the governed” in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution begins with “ We the People ,” announcing the purposes and goals of the Constitution, before listing the structures and protections of individual rights its authors designed to implement those objectives.

The Founders wrote the Constitution to ensure the government remained bound to its principles and promises, but they recognized that to be a lasting document, it would need to change. Thus, they included Article V, which describes the process of making an amendment — a change or addition to the Constitution, in which Congress proposes an amendment and the states ratify it.

Section 1.2: The Bill of Rights

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights and were ratified in 1791. These amendments limited federal power, by protecting both the rights of individuals and the authority of the states. The members of the Constitutional Convention had originally argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because of the doctrine of “enumerated powers.” (This doctrine means the federal government can only do what the Constitution specifically allows it to do.) For example, one did not need to specifically protect freedom of speech when the federal government had not been given explicit authority to restrict speech in the first place. Critics nonetheless demanded a Bill of Rights as an additional check and security before they would ratify the Constitution.

The Big Idea

“The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation’s history… Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance… [T]he Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost... [And] interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document .”

 - Frederick Douglass, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” (1862)

As a result, the constitutional ratifying conventions in almost every state demanded an amendment or amendments clarifying the limited power of the federal government to protect states’ sovereignty, and several insisted on specific individual liberties as well. While many proposed amendments were ultimately rejected, basic structural concerns were addressed by what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Tenth Amendment reiterated that the federal government’s powers were limited to those granted by the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment similarly held that a list of civil liberties—what the federal government could not do- did not imply the federal government could do everything else. The individual rights proposed by some of the conventions were fleshed out by James Madison into the rest of the Bill of Rights.

These provisions initially applied only to the federal government, though most state constitutions had similar provisions applying to their state governments. (Many of these state provisions actually preceded and even served as models for the Bill of Rights). The Fourteenth Amendment changed this, making the first eight amendments also apply to each of the states as well—providing a floor of individual rights at both the state and federal level.

Although Congress has proposed other amendments, only twenty-seven (27) amendments have been successfully ratified by the states to become constitutional amendments.

Section 1.3 The Declaration of Independence

In 1776 the Declaration of Independence announced the independence of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. This was because, according to the Declaration, humans are “endowed by their Creator” with “certain unalienable rights,” especially “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and Great Britain was not respecting the rights of the colonists. The Declaration explains that the very purpose of government is to protect these rights. Furthermore, it says that the people have the right to “alter or abolish” governments to protect these rights, and even to rebel against a government that systematically and consistently violated the people’s rights. Most of the Declaration of Independence is a list of these abuses by the British government and the British refusal to correct them. This sustained refusal is why the colonists concluded that they were justified in turning to rebellion, as a last resort, in order to create new governments that would protect their rights."  

Moreover, the Declaration of Independence asserted that ‘all men are created equal,’ meaning that no one has, by right, the innate authority to rule another. In order for a government to have legitimate authority, it must act with the consent of the people that it governs.  While the argument of the Declaration seems open to different forms of government that preserve the rights of the people, Americans increasingly came to believe that the principle that ‘all men are created equal’ entailed a republican form of government.    The Declaration’s ideas of liberty, equality, limited government, and self-government later served as important features of the Constitution. Other documents that shared these ideas and influenced the Constitution include important colonial documents such as the Mayflower Compact and Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the debates between the authors of the Federalist Papers and their “anti-Federalist” critics, and the Iroquois Great Law of Peace (the constitution establishing the federal league of five tribes). This tradition of political liberty is why the Constitution carefully limits government, such as by separating power into three branches of government: to ensure no part of the government can become too powerful.

Section 1.4 The American Political Order

The economic system of the United States is a capitalist or market economy, in which almost all businesses are owned and operated by private individuals, partnerships, and stockholders rather than by the government. Although the government can regulate the market, most decisions about what to produce, buy and sell, and at what prices, are made by consumers and sellers.

The “rule of law” is the idea that a consistent, and evenly applied set of rules, rather than the arbitrary will of those in power, binds all the members of society.  These laws must be made by proper procedures and published in advance of their enforcement. The binding nature of law means everyone—not just citizens, but the government, its leaders and officials—must follow and obey the law. Indeed, lawmakers, judges, and officers of federal and state governments must take a specific oath to faithfully follow the U.S. Constitution.

Section 1: Principles of American Democracy  

Flash cards, section 1: principles of american democracy, proceed to the next section.

10.2 The Rise of American Democracy

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe the key points of the election of 1828
• Explain the scandals of Andrew Jackson’s first term in office

A turning point in American political history occurred in 1828, which witnessed the election of Andrew Jackson over the incumbent John Quincy Adams. While democratic practices had been in ascendance since 1800, the year also saw the further unfolding of a democratic spirit in the United States. Supporters of Jackson called themselves Democrats or the Democracy, giving birth to the Democratic Party. Political authority appeared to rest with the majority as never before.

THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1828

During the 1800s, democratic reforms made steady progress with the abolition of property qualifications for voting and the birth of new forms of political party organization. The 1828 campaign pushed new democratic practices even further and highlighted the difference between the Jacksonian expanded electorate and the older, exclusive Adams style. A slogan of the day, “Adams who can write/Jackson who can fight,” captured the contrast between Adams the aristocrat and Jackson the frontiersman.

The 1828 campaign differed significantly from earlier presidential contests because of the party organization that promoted Andrew Jackson. Jackson and his supporters reminded voters of the “corrupt bargain” of 1824. They framed it as the work of a small group of political elites deciding who would lead the nation, acting in a self-serving manner and ignoring the will of the majority ( Figure 10.7 ). From Nashville, Tennessee, the Jackson campaign organized supporters around the nation through editorials in partisan newspapers and other publications. Pro-Jackson newspapers heralded the “hero of New Orleans” while denouncing Adams. Though he did not wage an election campaign filled with public appearances, Jackson did give one major campaign speech in New Orleans on January 8, the anniversary of the defeat of the British in 1815. He also engaged in rounds of discussion with politicians who came to his home, the Hermitage, in Nashville.

At the local level, Jackson’s supporters worked to bring in as many new voters as possible. Rallies, parades, and other rituals further broadcast the message that Jackson stood for the common man against the corrupt elite backing Adams and Clay. Democratic organizations called Hickory Clubs, a tribute to Jackson’s nickname, Old Hickory, also worked tirelessly to ensure his election.

In November 1828, Jackson won an overwhelming victory over Adams, capturing 56 percent of the popular vote and 68 percent of the electoral vote. As in 1800, when Jefferson had won over the Federalist incumbent John Adams, the presidency passed to a new political party, the Democrats. The election was the climax of several decades of expanding democracy in the United States and the end of the older politics of deference.

Click and Explore

Visit The Hermitage to explore a timeline of Andrew Jackson’s life and career. How do you think the events of his younger life affected the trajectory of his political career?

SCANDAL IN THE PRESIDENCY

Amid revelations of widespread fraud, including the disclosure that some $300,000 was missing from the Treasury Department, Jackson removed almost 50 percent of appointed civil officers, which allowed him to handpick their replacements. This replacement of appointed federal officials is called rotation in office . Lucrative posts, such as postmaster and deputy postmaster, went to party loyalists, especially in places where Jackson’s support had been weakest, such as New England. Some Democratic newspaper editors who had supported Jackson during the campaign also gained public jobs.

Jackson’s opponents were angered and took to calling the practice the spoils system, after the policies of Van Buren’s Bucktail Republican Party. The rewarding of party loyalists with government jobs resulted in spectacular instances of corruption. Perhaps the most notorious occurred in New York City, where a Jackson appointee made off with over $1 million. Such examples seemed proof positive that the Democrats were disregarding merit, education, and respectability in decisions about the governing of the nation.

In addition to dealing with rancor over rotation in office, the Jackson administration became embroiled in a personal scandal known as the Petticoat affair . This incident exacerbated the division between the president’s team and the insider class in the nation’s capital, who found the new arrivals from Tennessee lacking in decorum and propriety. At the center of the storm was Margaret (“Peggy”) O’Neal, a well-known socialite in Washington, DC ( Figure 10.8 ). O’Neal had connections to the republic’s most powerful men. She married John Timberlake, a naval officer, and they had three children. Rumors abounded, however, about her involvement with John Eaton, a U.S. senator from Tennessee who had come to Washington in 1818.

Timberlake committed suicide in 1828, setting off a flurry of rumors that he had been distraught over his wife’s reputed infidelities. Eaton and Mrs. Timberlake married soon after, with the full approval of President Jackson. The so-called Petticoat affair divided Washington society. Many Washington socialites snubbed the new Mrs. Eaton as a woman of low moral character. Among those who would have nothing to do with her was Vice President John C. Calhoun’s wife, Floride. Calhoun fell out of favor with President Jackson, who defended Peggy Eaton and derided those who would not socialize with her, declaring she was “as chaste as a virgin.” (Jackson had personal reasons for defending Eaton: he drew a parallel between Eaton’s treatment and that of his late wife, Rachel, who had been subjected to attacks on her reputation related to her first marriage, which had ended in divorce.) Martin Van Buren, who defended the Eatons and organized social gatherings with them, became close to Jackson, who came to rely on a group of informal advisers that included Van Buren and was dubbed the Kitchen Cabinet . This select group of presidential supporters highlights the importance of party loyalty to Jackson and the Democratic Party.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/us-history/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: P. Scott Corbett, Volker Janssen, John M. Lund, Todd Pfannestiel, Sylvie Waskiewicz, Paul Vickery
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: U.S. History
• Publication date: Dec 30, 2014
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/us-history/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/us-history/pages/10-2-the-rise-of-american-democracy

© Jan 11, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

The character of American democracy: Values-based leadership

Subscribe to governance weekly, jill long thompson jlt jill long thompson board chair and ceo, farm credit administration; former member of the u.s. house of representatives.

November 12, 2020

During the Watergate investigation, President Richard Nixon’s supporters would often argue that because they agreed with his policy positions, they could overlook his ethical and moral shortcomings. At that time a member of the U.S. House, Earl Landgrebe from my home state of Indiana, took this position to the extreme when he said, “Don’t confuse me with the facts” because he had made up his mind and would continue to support the president.

We hear a similar sentiment expressed today by supporters of President Donald Trump as they support his continuing claims that the election was fraudulent. This reflects a belief by some that ethical leadership is not important, or even relevant, so long as elected officials advance policies with which they agree. This kind of thinking is a threat to our democracy and our country.

Democracy is a form of government built on a foundation of ethical principles and it cannot survive unless those principles are honored and protected. Values matter because how we adopt laws is as important as the laws we adopt, and all of us are charged with protecting the self-governing principles that are the foundation of our great nation. Unethical leadership can undermine the democratic process, and even democracy itself.

Values-based leadership is essential to preserving and protecting democratic principles and there are at least three widely recognized moral virtues that are central to ensuring the governing process is democratic: truthfulness, justice, and temperance.

Truthfulness

When leaders lie, it is usually because the facts are not on their side and they do not want others to know the truth. They think the lie benefits them personally, usually at a cost to the rest of us. According to The Washington Post, The Fact Checker determined in August of this year that President Trump had made 22,000 false and misleading claims since taking office.

These untruths hurt our democracy because when our leaders deceive us, it becomes more challenging for the public to learn the facts. And that makes it more challenging for citizens to provide meaningful input. This undermines the all-important role of the citizenry in the policy-making process and it will most likely lead to the adoption of policies that are flawed because decisions based on falsehoods are usually bad decisions.

I came of age when the nation was deeply divided over our involvement in the Vietnam War and I very much wanted to believe that our political leaders were telling us the truth and that the anti-war protesters were wrong. But by the time I had completed my freshman year of college, critical content of the Pentagon Papers had been leaked to the press, confirming the very criticism the protesters were raising. Had the citizenry been told the truth, the course of history could have been changed for the better.

And today, we have lost tens of thousands of lives to COVID-19 that could have been saved had President Trump stated to the public what he said in his interviews with Robert Woodward.

Justice exists only when there is fairness in the process of governing. It requires those in leadership positions to consider the varied interests of all and to protect equality of participation. There must also be transparency.

Voter suppression of any kind is unjust and a threat to democracy. For example, how we draw congressional district maps influences the fairness of our elections. When congressional districts are construed in ways that concentrate voters of one political party in a smaller number of districts than is representative of the actual number of voters in that party, it can result in one party receiving a larger share of seats than votes.

As an example, in 2016 Republican candidates running for the U.S. House received 49.9 percent of the votes cast, while Democratic candidates received 47.3 percent of the votes cast. But Republicans won 55.2 percent, and Democrats won 44.8 percent of the seats in the House. In other words, Republicans got a “seats bonus.” Such gerrymandering suppresses the voices of voters across the country and clearly undercuts the most basic democratic principle of political equality.

Temperance is also central to democratic leadership. In democracy we do not each get our way, but we must respect the right we all have to work with our fellow citizens and address our challenges in a way that moves us forward as a people. Respect for the rights of others is essential. Good leaders do not divide and conquer, but rather, they bring people together through the democratic process. We are all in this together and we must all work together for the greater good of our nation.

Democracy is a principled form of government in which we all matter, and values-based leadership is central to preserving and protecting this great democratic experiment we call the United States of America.

Jill Long Thompson is a former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, former Under Secretary at U.S.D.A., and former Board Chair and CEO at the Farm Credit Administration. She is a visiting scholar with the Ostrom Workshop at Indiana University Bloomington and has authored a book, The Character of American Democracy, published by Indiana University Press on September 15, 2020. The opinions expressed in this essay are hers and do not necessarily reflect those of Indiana University.

Related Content

Elaine Kamarck

September 24, 2019

Michael Hais, Doug Ross, Morley Winograd

February 1, 2022

April 3, 2018

Campaigns & Elections Presidency

Governance Studies

Center for Effective Public Management

William A. Galston

March 28, 2024

Morley Winograd, Michael Hais

March 25, 2024

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

What the future holds for democracy in the U.S.

NPR's Michel Martin talks with political scientist Steven Levitsky of Harvard University about the future of American democracy.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

We're going to go back to a story that dominated political coverage earlier this week, one you might have skipped because it seemed like so much political arcana or a typical petty clash of political ego. Our next guest says it is much more important than that. We're talking about the decision earlier this week by Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona, to insist she would not support her party in changing the Senate's filibuster rule, not even for the limited purpose of passing a voting rights bill. She was, of course, joined in that decision by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and all Senate Republicans. And while fights over filibuster rules and Capitol Hill gridlock may seem petty or business as usual, our next guest says they are a symptom of something more dangerous - the backsliding of American democracy.

Steven Levitsky is a professor of government at Harvard University and the co-author of "How Democracies Die." He argues that they don't generally die through coups or violent overthrows but more gradually through polarization, the erosion of democratic norms and efforts to limit access to the ballot. And he's with us now. Steven Levitsky, thanks so much for joining us.

STEVEN LEVITSKY: Thanks for inviting me.

MARTIN: So we should mention at the outset that this week, you spoke with Senate Democrats about your research and what it tells us about threats to American democracy. You were asked to not disclose the contents of that meeting - fair enough. But given what you saw on Capitol Hill, I'm just wondering, do you think your message was heard?

LEVITSKY: It's hard to say, but it doesn't look like the Democrats have unanimity they need to change the filibuster rules in order to pass critical legislation proving our election. So in that sense, no. I mean, if we went in hoping that we would generate a consensus behind ending the filibuster, we didn't achieve that.

MARTIN: So I just wanted to take a step back and talk about your broader research. When some people think about threats to democracy, I'm thinking that people would think about violent attempts to overthrow the government. And we just observed the one-year anniversary of the January 6 mob attack on the Capitol, whose purpose was to interfere with the certification of the elections. But you argued that democracies generally don't die through violent overthrows but the erosion of democratic norms. Talk a little bit more, if you would, about what that looks like and if you think we're seeing that now.

LEVITSKY: I don't mean to understate the importance of January 6, and as bad a symptom as January 6 is, that's probably not how American democracy would die if it does die. Elected autocrats - almost always, the first thing that they do, the first thing they try to do is capture the referee, is place loyalists in the courts, in the attorney general's office, the prosecutor's office, in the electoral authorities, in the intelligence agencies, in all the places that allow the law to be used as a partisan weapon both to protect the government from the investigation and to investigate and punish rivals.

MARTIN: So this is where I want to go back to the filibuster because that is so relevant to all the things that we're talking about here. But let's just talk about, like, the right-now moment. The argument that Republicans and the more conservative Democrats are using is that changing it discourages the parties from working together. And this is something that Senator Sinema has cited repeatedly, which is that she's looking for durable solutions that are bipartisan because that's what she says endorse. How does a rule like this fit within the construct of democracy? Is there a similar rule in other countries? Is there any merit to this argument that this rule actually helps those parties work together? Because we're certainly not seeing that right now.

LEVITSKY: No. I think there's very little merit to it, actually. The filibuster is a rule. It allows a partisan minority to systematically and permanently block the agenda of a legislative majority. That is outright antidemocratic, which is why no established democracy on earth has something like the filibuster except the United States. And so for most of our history, the filibuster was very rarely used. Little bit of data - between 1917 and 1970, there was an average of one filibuster a year. Senators exercised restraint in using the filibusters.

Only starting in the '70s, picking up in the '80s and '90s but really accelerating early 21st century that the filibuster, rather than being something that was used once a year, is used for every major piece of legislation. It's become a permanent minority veto. It never was historically, but it is now, in the last 20 years. So what Kyrsten Sinema is defending is not something designed by the founders. The founders opposed it. It's not something that existed during the golden age of American democracy because the filibuster wasn't used during the golden age of democracy. It's something emerged in the 21st century at a time that the U.S. democracy was heavily polarized and increasingly dysfunctional. It's only existed in this way at a time when U.S. democracy wasn't working. So I'm not sure what there is to preserve.

MARTIN: As a professor of political science who takes the long view, who looks at these issues both historically and also transnationally, is there anything, in your view, that encourages you?

LEVITSKY: Yes. I think that the United States has an opportunity to do something that is really unique in world history, and that is become a truly multiracial democracy. We became a multiracial democracy on paper in 1965, but we will not be a truly multiracial democracy until individuals of every ethnic group get treated equally by the state. We've made enormous progress in that direction. We're becoming a much more diverse and more racially egalitarian society.

It's precisely that movement towards multiracial democracy that Trumpism is pushing back against. But I think we're going to get there because the multiracial Democratic coalition in this country is a majority, it is growing and it's particularly pronounced among younger generations. But I actually think we stand a good chance of getting there. And when we get to the other side, the U.S. has a chance to become a multiracial democracy that can be a model for the world.

MARTIN: That was Steven Levitsky. He is a professor of government at Harvard University and co-author of "How Democracies Die." Professor Levitsky, thank you so much for talking with us.

LEVITSKY: Thanks for having me.

(SOUNDBITE OF THE AMERICAN DOLLAR'S "ANYTHING YOU SYNTHESIZE")

Copyright © 2022 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

By the People: Essays on Democracy

Harvard Kennedy School faculty explore aspects of democracy in their own words—from increasing civic participation and decreasing extreme partisanship to strengthening democratic institutions and making them more fair.

Winter 2020

By Archon Fung , Nancy Gibbs , Tarek Masoud , Julia Minson , Cornell William Brooks , Jane Mansbridge , Arthur Brooks , Pippa Norris , Benjamin Schneer

The basic terms of democratic governance are shifting before our eyes, and we don’t know what the future holds. Some fear the rise of hateful populism and the collapse of democratic norms and practices. Others see opportunities for marginalized people and groups to exercise greater voice and influence. At the Kennedy School, we are striving to produce ideas and insights to meet these great uncertainties and to help make democratic governance successful in the future. In the pages that follow, you can read about the varied ways our faculty members think about facets of democracy and democratic institutions and making democracy better in practice.

Explore essays on democracy

Archon fung: we voted, nancy gibbs: truth and trust, tarek masoud: a fragile state, julia minson: just listen, cornell william brooks: democracy behind bars, jane mansbridge: a teachable skill, arthur brooks: healthy competition, pippa norris: kicking the sandcastle, benjamin schneer: drawing a line.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

Find what you need to study

Unit 1 Overview: Foundations of American Democracy

8 min read • january 29, 2023

Daniel Bacharach

Government. It’s something we interact with every day of our lives—whether it’s hopping into a bus or car to get to school, buying that snack at the end of the school day, or taking a hot shower at the end of a long day. We regularly see the effects of government on our life—but in this unit, we’ll be exploring just how the government of the United States came to be structured the way it was, and how that structure has led to the government we have all come to know today.

As you prepare for the AP US  Gov and Politics exam, there are nine Foundational Documents that you’ll need to know well—these are the focus of the Argumentative Essay that you’ll write for FRQ 4. This unit contains the vast majority of these documents, since, as their name implies, they are crucial points at the foundation of our system of government!

Origins of American Democracy

It’s time to throw it way back—all the way to John Locke, whose ideas of natural rights , the social contract , and limited government had a major impact on the Founders of the United States. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence (FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT), he made it clear that these basic democratic ideals were at the heart of the formation of a new nation. After experiencing life under a monarchy with King George III, the Founders placed the idea of limited government front and center, putting explicit limits on the power that a government could have.

The foremost limit placed on the government was that it had to protect its people’s natural rights—namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since America was to be based on popular sovereignty , meaning that government received its power to govern from the people, the people also had the right and responsibility, according to Jefferson, to “alter or abolish” the government should it no longer protect these natural rights.

Theories of Democratic Government

Based on these ideas, it’s clear the United States was structured to have a democratic government—that’s something we can all agree on. There are a few different theories of democratic government, though, that attempt to explain how democratic government actually works in practice. Which of these theories best describes American government is up for debate, but you should know all three for the AP exam!

Participatory Democracy

There’s participatory democracy , which argues that power in a democracy is based on the participation of individual citizens. We see this through town hall meetings, contacting representatives, and more formal mechanisms like initiatives and referendums.

Pluralist Democracy

There’s pluralist democracy , which argues that power in a democracy is largely in the hands of organized groups of citizens who fight for a common goal. Interest groups, like the ACLU, NRA, Sierra Club, and Black Lives Matter, influence the political decisions of our government. This embodies the idea of pluralist democracy.

Elite Democracy

Finally, there’s elite democracy , which argues that the wealthy and educated elite are those who hold the real power in a democracy and make the decisions for the broader population.

A First Attempt: The Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation (FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT) set up the first government of the United States after the Revolutionary War, but ultimately contained a number of weaknesses—in particular, that the national government had no power to impose taxes or raise troops. Those weaknesses were highlighted by Shay’s Rebellion , where a group of farmers rebelled against the government, and little could be done to stop them. It was at this point that the Founders realized that changes needed to be made, resulting in the Constitutional Convention.

The Road to the Constitution

In debating the Constitution of the United States (FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT) at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, there were four major compromises that needed to be reached.

The Great (Connecticut) Compromise resolved a disagreement between large and small states about representation in Congress, and created a bicameral (two-house) legislature with one house—the House of Representatives (from the Virginia Plan )—where each state receives a number of representatives based on population, and another house—the Senate (from the New Jersey Plan )—where each state receives an equal number of representatives.

The Electoral College was developed to compromise between those who feared Congress selecting the President and those who feared the people directly electing the President, creating a system where electors would be chosen by the states and they would be the ones to elect the President.

The Three-Fifths Compromise addressed the concern about how to count enslaved persons when it came to Congressional representation and the collection of federal taxes. The Constitution compromised by deciding to count each enslaved person as three-fifths of one person.

The Compromise on the Importation of Enslaved Persons addressed the conflict between states over the power of the national government to ban the slave trade. The Convention came to the agreement that Congress would have the power to do so, but not until 1808.

Even these compromises were not enough to convince everyone that the Constitution set up the best possible government. To debate the merits of the Constitution further, the Founders wrote a series of essays explaining their reasoning. Think of it like a bunch of really, really long Twitter threads!

Federalist No. 10 (FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT), written by James Madison, argues that a large republic would be the best way to control the danger of factions. According to Madison, factions are groups of people sharing a common belief that threatens the rights of other citizens or community interests. A large republic would be best suited to control the effects of factions, according to Madison, because although a faction might be able to gain control in a small pocket of the nation, the larger the nation, the harder it would be to spread that influence. Think about it this way—if you were trying to convince your friends to go out to eat at the restaurant of your choice, it might not be too difficult to persuade 2 or 3 people. The larger your friend group though, the harder it would be for you—imagine having to persuade 100 friends to go with your restaurant choice!

Brutus 1 (FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT), on the other hand, argued the Anti-Federalist perspective. Brutus argued for a small, decentralized government, noting that a large republic would not be able to meet the needs of its citizens, since each part of the nation would have vastly different interests and needs. Brutus also argued that the Constitution created a national government that was far too powerful, pointing to the Necessary and Proper Clause and Supremacy Clause as two examples that demonstrated the power of a large national government would grow uncontrollably at the expense of states.

Key Principle: Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances

The Constitution lays out the structure of American government—and two major principles guide a great deal of the document: separation of powers and checks and balances.

Separation of powers points to the division of power between different branches of government. The Constitution creates three such branches: executive (the president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (courts).

Not only are these branches assigned separate powers, they are also given the ability to check the power of other branches—thus creating checks and balances . While Congress can pass laws, for example, the President has the power to veto a law passed by Congress, and Congress then has the power to override that veto.

The importance of separation of powers and checks and balances is discussed in Federalist No. 51 (FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT), in which Madison argues the two principles will prevent any one branch from getting too powerful.

Key Principle: Federalism

Federalism is the division of powers between national and state governments, and is central to the American structure of government. The Constitution lays out a number of different powers: delegated or enumerated powers which are granted to the national government, concurrent powers which are shared by the federal and state governments, and reserved powers which are left to states.

The power of national and state governments has been regularly debated over the course of American history. Constitutional Clauses like the Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause) give Congress the ability to expand national power, while the Tenth Amendment points to the idea that any powers not given to the national government are reserved to the states.

Two Supreme Court Cases (that you’ll need to know for FRQ 3 on the AP exam) deal with the interpretations of federalism—McCulloch v. Maryland and United States v. Lopez.

In McCulloch v. Maryland   (REQUIRED SCOTUS CASE), Maryland attempted to tax that National Bank, leading the Supreme Court to rule that the Supremacy Clause ensured that federal law has authority over state laws when the two are in conflict. The case also created the concept of implied powers that gave Congress power to do things needed to implement enumerated powers.

In US v. Lopez  (REQUIRED SCOTUS CASE), Lopez brought a gun to school violating the Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lopez, striking down the GFSZA through its interpretation of the commerce clause . Since Congress had the power to regulate only interstate commerce, and bringing a gun to school did not constitute interstate commerce, the law exceeded the powers of Congress.

Federalism results in the creation of different policies across the United States, as there are a number of policy areas where states have the power to create policies that best meet their needs.

The national government uses federal funding to influence state policies, and it has a number of options for this funding. Categorical grants are monies given to states with specific rules in place, requiring money to be spent in a federally mandated way (think of this as money for only one specific category of spending). Block grants give states more control over how to spend the federal aid (think of this as a big block of money that states can split up and use as they wish). Mandates are federal requirements on states, and can be either funded mandates , where the federal government gives states money to carry out the mandate, or unfunded mandates , where states must carry out the mandate without any federal funding.

Stay Connected

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

The Last Time Democracy Almost Died

By Jill Lepore

The last time democracy nearly died all over the world and almost all at once, Americans argued about it, and then they tried to fix it. “The future of democracy is topic number one in the animated discussion going on all over America,” a contributor to the New York Times wrote in 1937. “In the Legislatures, over the radio, at the luncheon table, in the drawing rooms, at meetings of forums and in all kinds of groups of citizens everywhere, people are talking about the democratic way of life.” People bickered and people hollered, and they also made rules. “You are a liar!” one guy shouted from the audience during a political debate heard on the radio by ten million Americans, from Missoula to Tallahassee. “Now, now, we don’t allow that,” the moderator said, calmly, and asked him to leave.

In the nineteen-thirties, you could count on the Yankees winning the World Series, dust storms plaguing the prairies, evangelicals preaching on the radio, Franklin Delano Roosevelt residing in the White House, people lining up for blocks to get scraps of food, and democracies dying, from the Andes to the Urals and the Alps.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson’s Administration had promised that winning the Great War would “make the world safe for democracy.” The peace carved nearly a dozen new states out of the former Russian, Ottoman, and Austrian empires. The number of democracies in the world rose; the spread of liberal-democratic governance began to appear inevitable. But this was no more than a reverie. Infant democracies grew, toddled, wobbled, and fell: Hungary, Albania, Poland, Lithuania, Yugoslavia. In older states, too, the desperate masses turned to authoritarianism. Benito Mussolini marched on Rome in 1922. It had taken a century and a half for European monarchs who ruled by divine right and brute force to be replaced by constitutional democracies and the rule of law. Now Fascism and Communism toppled these governments in a matter of months, even before the stock-market crash of 1929 and the misery that ensued.

Receive alerts about new stories in our exploration of democracy in America.

“Epitaphs for democracy are the fashion of the day,” the soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, dismally, in 1930. The annus horribilis that followed differed from every other year in the history of the world, according to the British historian Arnold Toynbee: “In 1931, men and women all over the world were seriously contemplating and frankly discussing the possibility that the Western system of Society might break down and cease to work.” When Japan invaded Manchuria, the League of Nations condemned the annexation, to no avail. “The liberal state is destined to perish,” Mussolini predicted in 1932. “All the political experiments of our day are anti-liberal.” By 1933, the year Adolf Hitler came to power, the American political commentator Walter Lippmann was telling an audience of students at Berkeley that “the old relationships among the great masses of the people of the earth have disappeared.” What next? More epitaphs: Greece, Romania, Estonia, and Latvia. Authoritarians multiplied in Portugal, Uruguay, Spain. Japan invaded Shanghai. Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. “The present century is the century of authority,” he declared, “a century of the Right, a Fascist century.”

American democracy, too, staggered, weakened by corruption, monopoly, apathy, inequality, political violence, hucksterism, racial injustice, unemployment, even starvation. “We do not distrust the future of essential democracy,” F.D.R. said in his first Inaugural Address, telling Americans that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself. But there was more to be afraid of, including Americans’ own declining faith in self-government. “What Does Democracy Mean?” NBC radio asked listeners. “Do we Negroes believe in democracy?” W. E. B. Du Bois asked the readers of his newspaper column. Could it happen here? Sinclair Lewis asked in 1935. Americans suffered, and hungered, and wondered. The historian Charles Beard, in the inevitable essay on “The Future of Democracy in the United States,” predicted that American democracy would endure, if only because “there is in America, no Rome, no Berlin to march on.” Some Americans turned to Communism . Some turned to Fascism. And a lot of people, worried about whether American democracy could survive past the end of the decade, strove to save it.

“It’s not too late,” Jimmy Stewart pleaded with Congress, rasping, exhausted, in “ Mr. Smith Goes to Washington ,” in 1939. “Great principles don’t get lost once they come to light.” It wasn’t too late. It’s still not too late.

There’s a kind of likeness you see in family photographs, generation after generation. The same ears, the same funny nose. Sometimes now looks a lot like then. Still, it can be hard to tell whether the likeness is more than skin deep.

In the nineteen-nineties, with the end of the Cold War, democracies grew more plentiful, much as they had after the end of the First World War. As ever, the infant-mortality rate for democracies was high: baby democracies tend to die in their cradles. Starting in about 2005, the number of democracies around the world began to fall, as it had in the nineteen-thirties. Authoritarians rose to power: Vladimir Putin in Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Donald J. Trump in the United States.

Link copied

“American democracy,” as a matter of history, is democracy with an asterisk, the symbol A-Rod’s name would need if he were ever inducted into the Hall of Fame. Not until the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act can the United States be said to have met the basic conditions for political equality requisite in a democracy. All the same, measured not against its past but against its contemporaries, American democracy in the twenty-first century is withering. The Democracy Index rates a hundred and sixty-seven countries, every year, on a scale that ranges from “full democracy” to “authoritarian regime.” In 2006, the U.S. was a “full democracy,” the seventeenth most democratic nation in the world. In 2016, the index for the first time rated the United States a “flawed democracy,” and since then American democracy has gotten only more flawed. True, the United States still doesn’t have a Rome or a Berlin to march on. That hasn’t saved the nation from misinformation, tribalization, domestic terrorism, human-rights abuses, political intolerance, social-media mob rule, white nationalism, a criminal President, the nobbling of Congress, a corrupt Presidential Administration, assaults on the press, crippling polarization, the undermining of elections, and an epistemological chaos that is the only air that totalitarianism can breathe.

Nothing so sharpens one’s appreciation for democracy as bearing witness to its demolition. Mussolini called Italy and Germany “the greatest and soundest democracies which exist in the world today,” and Hitler liked to say that, with Nazi Germany, he had achieved a “beautiful democracy,” prompting the American political columnist Dorothy Thompson to remark of the Fascist state, “If it is going to call itself democratic we had better find another word for what we have and what we want.” In the nineteen-thirties, Americans didn’t find another word. But they did work to decide what they wanted, and to imagine and to build it. Thompson, who had been a foreign correspondent in Germany and Austria and had interviewed the Führer, said, in a column that reached eight million readers, “Be sure you know what you prepare to defend.”

It’s a paradox of democracy that the best way to defend it is to attack it, to ask more of it, by way of criticism, protest, and dissent. American democracy in the nineteen-thirties had plenty of critics, left and right, from Mexican-Americans who objected to a brutal regime of forced deportations to businessmen who believed the New Deal to be unconstitutional. W. E. B. Du Bois predicted that, unless the United States met its obligations to the dignity and equality of all its citizens and ended its enthrallment to corporations, American democracy would fail: “If it is going to use this power to force the world into color prejudice and race antagonism; if it is going to use it to manufacture millionaires, increase the rule of wealth, and break down democratic government everywhere; if it is going increasingly to stand for reaction, fascism, white supremacy and imperialism; if it is going to promote war and not peace; then America will go the way of the Roman Empire.”

The historian Mary Ritter Beard warned that American democracy would make no headway against its “ruthless enemies—war, fascism, ignorance, poverty, scarcity, unemployment, sadistic criminality, racial persecution, man’s lust for power and woman’s miserable trailing in the shadow of his frightful ways”—unless Americans could imagine a future democracy in which women would no longer be barred from positions of leadership: “If we will not so envisage our future, no Bill of Rights, man’s or woman’s, is worth the paper on which it is printed.”

If the United States hasn’t gone the way of the Roman Empire and the Bill of Rights is still worth more than the paper on which it’s printed, that’s because so many people have been, ever since, fighting the fights Du Bois and Ritter Beard fought. There have been wins and losses. The fight goes on.

Could no system of rule but extremism hold back the chaos of economic decline? In the nineteen-thirties, people all over the world, liberals, hoped that the United States would be able to find a middle road, somewhere between the malignity of a state-run economy and the mercilessness of laissez-faire capitalism. Roosevelt campaigned in 1932 on the promise to rescue American democracy by way of a “new deal for the American people,” his version of that third way: relief, recovery, and reform. He won forty-two of forty-eight states, and trounced the incumbent, Herbert Hoover, in the Electoral College 472 to 59. Given the national emergency in which Roosevelt took office, Congress granted him an almost entirely free hand, even as critics raised concerns that the powers he assumed were barely short of dictatorial.

New Dealers were trying to save the economy; they ended up saving democracy. They built a new America; they told a new American story. On New Deal projects, people from different parts of the country labored side by side, constructing roads and bridges and dams, everything from the Lincoln Tunnel to the Hoover Dam, joining together in a common endeavor, shoulder to the wheel, hand to the forge. Many of those public-works projects, like better transportation and better electrification, also brought far-flung communities, down to the littlest town or the remotest farm, into a national culture, one enriched with new funds for the arts, theatre, music, and storytelling. With radio, more than with any other technology of communication, before or since, Americans gained a sense of their shared suffering, and shared ideals: they listened to one another’s voices.

This didn’t happen by accident. Writers and actors and directors and broadcasters made it happen. They dedicated themselves to using the medium to bring people together. Beginning in 1938, for instance, F.D.R.’s Works Progress Administration produced a twenty-six-week radio-drama series for CBS called “Americans All, Immigrants All,” written by Gilbert Seldes, the former editor of The Dial. “What brought people to this country from the four corners of the earth?” a pamphlet distributed to schoolteachers explaining the series asked. “What gifts did they bear? What were their problems? What problems remain unsolved?” The finale celebrated the American experiment: “The story of magnificent adventure! The record of an unparalleled event in the history of mankind!”

There is no twenty-first-century equivalent of Seldes’s “Americans All, Immigrants All,” because it is no longer acceptable for a serious artist to write in this vein, and for this audience, and for this purpose. (In some quarters, it was barely acceptable even then.) Love of the ordinary, affection for the common people, concern for the commonweal: these were features of the best writing and art of the nineteen-thirties. They are not so often features lately.

Americans reëlected F.D.R. in 1936 by one of the widest margins in the country’s history. American magazines continued the trend from the twenties, in which hardly a month went by without their taking stock: “Is Democracy Doomed?” “Can Democracy Survive?” (Those were the past century’s versions of more recent titles, such as “ How Democracy Ends ,” “ Why Liberalism Failed ,” “ How the Right Lost Its Mind ,” and “ How Democracies Die .” The same ears, that same funny nose.) In 1934, the Christian Science Monitor published a debate called “Whither Democracy?,” addressed “to everyone who has been thinking about the future of democracy—and who hasn’t.” It staked, as adversaries, two British scholars: Alfred Zimmern, a historian from Oxford, on the right, and Harold Laski, a political theorist from the London School of Economics, on the left. “Dr. Zimmern says in effect that where democracy has failed it has not been really tried,” the editors explained. “Professor Laski sees an irrepressible conflict between the idea of political equality in democracy and the fact of economic inequality in capitalism, and expects at least a temporary resort to Fascism or a capitalistic dictatorship.” On the one hand, American democracy is safe; on the other hand, American democracy is not safe.

Zimmern and Laski went on speaking tours of the United States, part of a long parade of visiting professors brought here to prognosticate on the future of democracy. Laski spoke to a crowd three thousand strong, in Washington’s Constitution Hall. “ Laski Tells How to Save Democracy ,” the Washington Post reported. Zimmern delivered a series of lectures titled “The Future of Democracy,” at the University of Buffalo, in which he warned that democracy had been undermined by a new aristocracy of self-professed experts. “I am no more ready to be governed by experts than I am to be governed by the ex-Kaiser,” he professed, expertly.

The year 1935 happened to mark the centennial of the publication of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “ Democracy in America ,” an occasion that elicited still more lectures from European intellectuals coming to the United States to remark on its system of government and the character of its people, close on Tocqueville’s heels. Heinrich Brüning, a scholar and a former Chancellor of Germany, lectured at Princeton on “The Crisis of Democracy”; the Swiss political theorist William Rappard gave the same title to a series of lectures he delivered at the University of Chicago. In “The Prospects for Democracy,” the Scottish historian and later BBC radio quiz-show panelist Denis W. Brogan offered little but gloom: “The defenders of democracy, the thinkers and writers who still believe in its merits, are in danger of suffering the fate of Aristotle, who kept his eyes fixedly on the city-state at a time when that form of government was being reduced to a shadow by the rise of Alexander’s world empire.” Brogan hedged his bets by predicting the worst. It’s an old trick.

The endless train of academics were also called upon to contribute to the nation’s growing number of periodicals. In 1937, The New Republic , arguing that “at no time since the rise of political democracy have its tenets been so seriously challenged as they are today,” ran a series on “The Future of Democracy,” featuring pieces by the likes of Bertrand Russell and John Dewey. “Do you think that political democracy is now on the wane?” the editors asked each writer. The series’ lead contributor, the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce, took issue with the question, as philosophers, thankfully, do. “I call this kind of question ‘meteorological,’ ” he grumbled. “It is like asking, ‘Do you think that it is going to rain today? Had I better take my umbrella?’ ” The trouble, Croce explained, is that political problems are not external forces beyond our control; they are forces within our control. “We need solely to make up our own minds and to act.”

Don’t ask whether you need an umbrella. Go outside and stop the rain.

Here are some of the sorts of people who went out and stopped the rain in the nineteen-thirties: schoolteachers, city councillors, librarians, poets, union organizers, artists, precinct workers, soldiers, civil-rights activists, and investigative reporters. They knew what they were prepared to defend and they defended it, even though they also knew that they risked attack from both the left and the right. Charles Beard (Mary Ritter’s husband) spoke out against the newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, the Rupert Murdoch of his day, when he smeared scholars and teachers as Communists. “The people who are doing the most damage to American democracy are men like Charles A. Beard,” said a historian at Trinity College in Hartford, speaking at a high school on the subject of “Democracy and the Future,” and warning against reading Beard’s books—at a time when Nazis in Germany and Austria were burning “un-German” books in public squares. That did not exactly happen here, but in the nineteen-thirties four of five American superintendents of schools recommended assigning only those U.S. history textbooks which “omit any facts likely to arouse in the minds of the students question or doubt concerning the justice of our social order and government.” Beard’s books, God bless them, raised doubts.

Beard didn’t back down. Nor did W.P.A. muralists and artists, who were subject to the same attack. Instead, Beard took pains to point out that Americans liked to think of themselves as good talkers and good arguers, people with a particular kind of smarts. Not necessarily book learning, but street smarts—reasonableness, open-mindedness, level-headedness. “The kind of universal intellectual prostration required by Bolshevism and Fascism is decidedly foreign to American ‘intelligence,’ ” Beard wrote. Possibly, he allowed, you could call this a stubborn independence of mind, or even mulishness. “Whatever the interpretation, our wisdom or ignorance stands in the way of our accepting the totalitarian assumption of Omniscience,” he insisted. “And to this extent it contributes to the continuance of the arguing, debating, never-settling-anything-finally methods of political democracy.” Maybe that was whistling in the dark, but sometimes a whistle is all you’ve got.

The more argument the better is what the North Carolina-born George V. Denny, Jr., was banking on, anyway, after a neighbor of his, in Scarsdale, declared that he so strongly disagreed with F.D.R. that he never listened to him. Denny, who helped run something called the League for Political Education, thought that was nuts. In 1935, he launched “America’s Town Meeting of the Air,” an hour-long debate program, broadcast nationally on NBC’s Blue Network. Each episode opened with a town crier ringing a bell and hollering, “Town meeting tonight! Town meeting tonight!” Then Denny moderated a debate, usually among three or four panelists, on a controversial subject (Does the U.S. have a truly free press? Should schools teach politics?), before opening the discussion up to questions from an audience of more than a thousand people. The debates were conducted at a lecture hall, usually in New York, and broadcast to listeners gathered in public libraries all over the country, so that they could hold their own debates once the show ended. “We are living today on the thin edge of history,” Max Lerner, the editor of The Nation , said in 1938, during a “Town Meeting of the Air” debate on the meaning of democracy. His panel included a Communist, an exile from the Spanish Civil War, a conservative American political economist, and a Russian columnist. “We didn’t expect to settle anything, and therefore we succeeded,” the Spanish exile said at the end of the hour, offering this definition: “A democracy is a place where a ‘Town Meeting of the Air’ can take place.”

No one expected anyone to come up with an undisputable definition of democracy, since the point was disputation. Asking people about the meaning and the future of democracy and listening to them argue it out was really only a way to get people to stretch their civic muscles. “Democracy can only be saved by democratic men and women,” Dorothy Thompson once said. “The war against democracy begins by the destruction of the democratic temper, the democratic method and the democratic heart. If the democratic temper be exacerbated into wanton unreasonableness, which is the essence of the evil, then a victory has been won for the evil we despise and prepare to defend ourselves against, even though it’s 3,000 miles away and has never moved.”

The most ambitious plan to get Americans to show up in the same room and argue with one another in the nineteen-thirties came out of Des Moines, Iowa, from a one-eyed former bricklayer named John W. Studebaker, who had become the superintendent of the city’s schools. Studebaker, who after the Second World War helped create the G.I. Bill, had the idea of opening those schools up at night, so that citizens could hold debates. In 1933, with a grant from the Carnegie Corporation and support from the American Association for Adult Education, he started a five-year experiment in civic education.

The meetings began at a quarter to eight, with a fifteen-minute news update, followed by a forty-five-minute lecture, and thirty minutes of debate. The idea was that “the people of the community of every political affiliation, creed, and economic view have an opportunity to participate freely.” When Senator Guy Gillette, a Democrat from Iowa, talked about “Why I Support the New Deal,” Senator Lester Dickinson, a Republican from Iowa, talked about “Why I Oppose the New Deal.” Speakers defended Fascism. They attacked capitalism. They attacked Fascism. They defended capitalism. Within the first nine months of the program, thirteen thousand of Des Moines’s seventy-six thousand adults had attended a forum. The program got so popular that in 1934 F.D.R. appointed Studebaker the U.S. Commissioner of Education and, with the eventual help of Eleanor Roosevelt, the program became a part of the New Deal, and received federal funding. The federal forum program started out in ten test sites—from Orange County, California, to Sedgwick County, Kansas, and Pulaski County, Arkansas. It came to include almost five hundred forums in forty-three states and involved two and a half million Americans. Even people who had steadfastly predicted the demise of democracy participated. “It seems to me the only method by which we are going to achieve democracy in the United States,” Du Bois wrote, in 1937.

The federal government paid for it, but everything else fell under local control, and ordinary people made it work, by showing up and participating. Usually, school districts found the speakers and decided on the topics after collecting ballots from the community. In some parts of the country, even in rural areas, meetings were held four and five times a week. They started in schools and spread to Y.M.C.A.s and Y.W.C.A.s, labor halls, libraries, settlement houses, and businesses, during lunch hours. Many of the meetings were broadcast by radio. People who went to those meetings debated all sorts of things:

Should the Power of the Supreme Court Be Altered? Do Company Unions Help Labor? Do Machines Oust Men? Must the West Get Out of the East? Can We Conquer Poverty? Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished? Is Propaganda a Menace? Do We Need a New Constitution? Should Women Work? Is America a Good Neighbor? Can It Happen Here?

These efforts don’t always work. Still, trying them is better than talking about the weather, and waiting for someone to hand you an umbrella.

When a terrible hurricane hit New England in 1938, Dr. Lorine Pruette, a Tennessee-born psychologist who had written an essay called “Why Women Fail,” and who had urged F.D.R. to name only women to his Cabinet, found herself marooned at a farm in New Hampshire with a young neighbor, sixteen-year-old Alice Hooper, a high-school sophomore. Waiting out the storm, they had nothing to do except listen to the news, which, needless to say, concerned the future of democracy. Alice asked Pruette a question: “What is it everyone on the radio is talking about—what is this democracy—what does it mean?” Somehow, in the end, NBC arranged a coast-to-coast broadcast, in which eight prominent thinkers—two ministers, three professors, a former ambassador, a poet, and a journalist—tried to explain to Alice the meaning of democracy. American democracy had found its “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” moment, except that it was messier, and more interesting, because those eight people didn’t agree on the answer. Democracy, Alice, is the darnedest thing.

That broadcast was made possible by the workers who brought electricity to rural New Hampshire; the legislators who signed the 1934 federal Communications Act, mandating public-interest broadcasting; the executives at NBC who decided that it was important to run this program; the two ministers, the three professors, the former ambassador, the poet, and the journalist who gave their time, for free, to a public forum, and agreed to disagree without acting like asses; and a whole lot of Americans who took the time to listen, carefully, even though they had plenty of other things to do. Getting out of our current jam will likely require something different, but not entirely different. And it will be worth doing.

A decade-long debate about the future of democracy came to a close at the end of the nineteen-thirties—but not because it had been settled. In 1939, the World’s Fair opened in Queens, with a main exhibit featuring the saga of democracy and a chipper motto: “The World of Tomorrow.” The fairgrounds included a Court of Peace, with pavilions for every nation. By the time the fair opened, Czechoslovakia had fallen to Germany, though, and its pavilion couldn’t open. Shortly afterward, Edvard Beneš, the exiled President of Czechoslovakia, delivered a series of lectures at the University of Chicago on, yes, the future of democracy, though he spoke less about the future than about the past, and especially about the terrible present, a time of violently unmoored traditions and laws and agreements, a time “of moral and intellectual crisis and chaos.” Soon, more funereal bunting was brought to the World’s Fair, to cover Poland, Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. By the time the World of Tomorrow closed, in 1940, half the European hall lay under a shroud of black.

The federal government stopped funding the forum program in 1941. Americans would take up their debate about the future of democracy, in a different form, only after the defeat of the Axis. For now, there was a war to fight. And there were still essays to publish, if not about the future, then about the present. In 1943, E. B. White got a letter in the mail, from the Writers’ War Board, asking him to write a statement about “ The Meaning of Democracy .” He was a little weary of these pieces, but he knew how much they mattered. He wrote back, “Democracy is a request from a War Board, in the middle of a morning in the middle of a war, wanting to know what democracy is.” It meant something once. And, the thing is, it still does. ♦

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Charles Bethea

By Astra Taylor

Why American Democracy Is Worth Defending

The Declaration also says that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. The United States is an inherently democratic enterprise. Although it takes the particular form of a constitutional republic, legitimacy is rightly derived from our collective voice. As the Constitution’s Preamble makes clear, we, the people, are the continuing source from which political authority flows.

But do we really understand what democracy means? This is an especially important question to ask given the current election cycle, which is quickly becoming acrimonious and divisive. We increasingly associate democracy with the act of voting, perhaps complemented by the occasional protest march or social media rant. Troublingly, these are often done in a spirit of anger: more because of what we are against than what we are for. Are these really the best means we have at our disposal to continue our ambitious experiment in self-government?

Voting has its place, of course. So do protest marches—and probably social media rants too, strange as that may seem. But though these activities are democratic, they are not among the most vital elements of democracy.

To understand what democracy is and why it’s important, we need to consult two of the most important social scientists of the 20th century. Both are Nobel laureates in economics, but their scholarship was much broader and more humane than that pursued by most economists. Their names are James Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom. Taking them seriously just might help us get out of the political arms race in which we’re trapped.

James Buchanan was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1987 for his contributions to political economy. The field of economics he pioneered is known as constitutional economics. Orthodox economics studies how people make choices within constraints. But constitutional economics studies the choice of which constraints we adopt. Buchanan realized that because we rationally reflect on our political institutions and sometimes modify them, we needed a theory of how we choose which rules and institutions will govern us.

In Buchanan’s conception, this is an inherently democratic enterprise, since the choice of rules must occur through deliberation among social equals. In choosing how we will constrain ourselves, Buchanan believed, we practice true self-governance. Just as an individual becomes a self-governing person through conscious restraint of his appetites, so a group of individuals becomes a self-governing body politic through conscious submission to rules. In Buchanan’s framework, finding the rules by which we can live together peacefully and profitably is the essence of democracy.

Elinor Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2009 for her contributions to the economics of governance, especially common-pool resources such as fisheries and irrigation systems. Her research was heavily empirical, often requiring significant time doing fieldwork. Like Buchanan, Ostrom saw her project as essentially democratic. Figuring out how communities oversee their use of common-pool resources is crucial for those who want to understand self-governance. The tendency for common-pool resources to be depleted too quickly is well-known. If communities are to get the most out of these resources, they must find some way of limiting their use.

Economists typically had two answers to this problem: either privatize them or turn them over to the state. Ostrom showed there was another way: The individuals within these communities can and did devise norms and other rules that provided the information and incentives to use the resource responsibly. Ostrom convincingly demonstrated that communal self-governance often took place in the social space  between  markets and states.

Democratic societies cannot solve collective-action problems solely through privatization or socialization. Instead, they need to do the difficult but necessary work of experimenting with rules that align personal well-being with social flourishing. This conception of democracy comes from Alexis de Tocqueville, the great observer and interpreter of early American democracy, who was Ostrom’s lodestar. Thanks to Ostrom, we know that democracy, as a “science of association,” means communities assuming for themselves the responsibilities of living rather than outsourcing them to a businessman or a bureaucrat.

The lessons bequeathed by Buchanan and Ostrom remind us that, in defending our democracy, we’re not just defending the right to vote, or to protest, or to offend. We’re defending things much more important than that: the right to associate, to deliberate, to govern , in the best sense of the word.

It is easy to forget that the political chasms that separate us can be bridged by common allegiance to the peaceful pursuit of experiments in living. Because we can choose how to live together, realizing our freedom in rational and consensual constraint, we can be governed without being ruled. That’s what American democracy means, and that’s why our continuing experiment in government “of the people, for the people, and by the people” is worth defending.

This essay was first published here in August 2019.

The Imaginative Conservative  applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider  donating now .

The featured image is “Election Day in Philadelphia” (1815) by John Lewis Krimmel (1787-1821), courtesy of Wikimedia Commons .

All comments are moderated and must be civil, concise, and constructive to the conversation. Comments that are critical of an essay may be approved, but comments containing ad hominem criticism of the author will not be published. Also, comments containing web links or block quotations are unlikely to be approved. Keep in mind that essays represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Imaginative Conservative or its editor or publisher.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the author: alexander salter.

Related Posts

“Hail, Festive Day”: A Hymn to Easter

A Sonnet for Easter Dawn

The Harrowing of Hell

Good Friday: The First 12 Stations of the Cross

Fairy Tales and Holy Week

Right, but this doesn’t work when the two sides have values that are alien to each other. For example, try finding some middle ground between the forces of Pro Life and Pro Death!

Something relatively new is coming down the pike from progressives which will make all this interesting discussion moot.

The next subject will be destroying the American founding through the sins of the slave holding founders, and thus we become a pawn in the socialistic globalist arena.

I would much prefer to discuss preserving/defending the American Democracy.

Great article and very incisive

These are lovely sentiments but with the way the world is today, the U.S. is not anything at all like it was at its founding. The centuries of pluralism, multiculturism, unfettered at times immigration (legal and illegal), the invention of the Internet, the proliferation of the expansion of the federal government, the “globalization” of economies and use of international bodies to influence nation’s policies, the unprecedented number of obscenely wealthy individuals who use their money to influence (and bribe) politicians and public policy makers, the advent of the administrative state where un elected selective government bureaucrats in the proliferate number of federal government agencies growing all of the time given unheard of powers to rule and enforce, both the federal and state governments taking control over more and more of all of the activities of human life, the infiltration of all human institutions with radical Socialists and Communists who have gained more and more support, influence and power, the rise of digital control, advances in artificial intelligence, the spread of propaganda and lies with censorship and punishment for those who dare question the accepted narrative-and much, much more-all make the idea of local or even regional communities unable to have peaceful “experiments in living.”

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

395 Democracy Essay Topics & Research Questions: Elections, American Democracy, and More

What is democracy? The word “democracy” has Greek roots. It combines two words: “demos,” which refers to people residing within a specific country, and “kratos,” which means power. Democracy ensures that all citizens have the same rights regardless of their background, race, religion, or sexual orientation. It also raises people’s sense of civic dignity.

In this article, we’ll explain how to write an essay on democracy and give some helpful tips. Keep reading to find out more.

• 🔝 Top Democracy Essay Topics

📝 Democracy Essay Prompts

• 💡 Democracy Research Questions
• ✍🏻 Democracy Essay Topics
• 🎤 Democracy Speech Topics
• ✅ Essay on Democracy: Outline

🔗 References

🔝 top 12 democracy essay topics.

• Democracy as public justification.
• Freedom and democratic authority.
• What are the main problems with democratic governance?
• The role of democracy in the modern world.
• The development of democracy.
• The influence of democracy on the young generation.
• The connection between human rights and democracy.
• What are the key features of democracy?
• The value of democracy.
• Democracy as collective self-rule.
• The demands of democratic participation.
• Limits to the authority of democracy.

Many students find writing a college essay on democracy to be a stressful task. For this reason, we’ve prepared some essay prompts and tips to help students improve their writing skills.

What Is Democracy: Essay Prompt

Democracy is a form of government that has played an essential role in reshaping societies from monarchical, imperial, and conquest-driven systems into ones founded on sovereignty and harmonious cohabitation principles. Here are some of the questions you can use for your essay:

• What is the definition of democracy?
• Why do we need democracy?
• Where did democracy initially come into existence?
• What distinguishes democracy from other forms of government?
• Why is education important for democracy?
• What is democracy’s primary flaw?
• What poses the most significant risk to democracy?

Disadvantages of Democracy: Essay Prompt

One disadvantage of democracy is that it can sometimes lead to slow decision-making due to the need for consensus and majority agreement. There’s also a risk of overlooking the interests of the minority. Finally, democratic systems can be susceptible to manipulation and misinformation, potentially leading to uninformed or misguided decisions by the electorate. In your essay, you may focus on the following aspects:

• The issue of corruption . A democratic leader is only in power for a limited time. As a result, there’s a tendency to make money through the use of authority.
• Unfair business . Political leaders advocate unfair commercial practices to get support for political campaigns.
• Misuse of media . Often, the media attempts to deceive the public to influence their voting behavior.

Democracy vs. Totalitarianism: Essay Prompt

Totalitarianism and democracy are opposing forms of government. Whereas democracy values equal rights and citizens’ participation in the government, in a totalitarian system, the leader’s word is the law, and the state has all the power. To compare totalitarianism and democracy in your essay, you may discuss these points:

• Origin of totalitarianism and democracy;
• Public opinion on these forms of governance;
• Law and discretion;
• Minority rights and their importance;
• Internal enemies of totalitarianism and democracy.

Capitalism vs Democracy: Essay Prompt

Capitalism and democracy spread throughout the Western world during the 20th century. The fundamental distinction between the two concepts is that democracy is a form of government and a political system, while capitalism is an economic system.

In your essay, you can discuss the following questions:

• What is the connection between capitalism and democracy?
• What are the main goals and values of capitalism/democracy?
• What does capitalism/democracy mean today?
• What are the examples of capitalism/democracy?
• Why is capitalism /democracy harmful?

💡 Research Questions about Democracy

• How does a society’s education level impact the strength of its democratic institutions?
• What role does media freedom play in promoting democratic values?
• Relationship between economic development and political democratization .
• How does income inequality affect the functioning of democratic systems?
• What are the key factors that contribute to the stability of democratic governments?
• How does the level of political participation among citizens influence the quality of democracy?
• Researching the concept of democracy .
• What is the role of political parties in shaping democratic governance?
• How does the use of technology impact democratic processes and decision-making?
• Asian economic development and democratization .
• Does the presence of a strong judiciary contribute to the consolidation of democracy in a country?
• How does the level of trust among citizens affect democratic practices?
• What impact does gender equality have on the strength of democratic institutions?
• The equality of income or wealth depending on democracy .
• How does ethnic diversity influence the stability of democratic governments?
• What role do non-governmental organizations play in promoting democratic values?
• The democratic style of leadership .
• How does government transparency impact citizens’ trust in democratic institutions?
• How does the separation of powers principle contribute to democratic governance?
• What impact do direct democratic mechanisms, such as referendums , have on decision-making processes?
• How do political parties strengthen democracy ?
• How does the presence of independent media impact the accountability of political leaders in a democracy?
• What is the role of civil society in ensuring the effectiveness of democratic governance?
• Martin Luther Jr. “Jail Letter” and Aung San Kyi’s democracy excerp t.
• How does the integration of minority communities impact the inclusiveness of democratic systems?
• Does the involvement of citizens in local governance contribute to stronger democratic practices?
• What role does the rule of law play in establishing a democratic society?
• What are the impacts of social media on democracy ?
• What factors contribute to the erosion of democratic norms and values?
• What impact do international agreements have on the promotion and consolidation of democracy?
• Democracy: pluralist theory and elite theory .
• How does the role of money in politics influence the democratic decision-making process?
• What impact do international human rights standards have on protecting citizens’ rights within a democracy?
• What role does decentralization play in promoting democratic governance?
• What is the impact of technology on democracy ?
• How does the level of government accountability impact the overall functioning of a democracy?
• What is the relationship between economic development and the sustainability of democratic systems?
• Comparison of democracy levels in Uruguay and Venezuela .
• How does the level of political polarization impact the effectiveness of democratic governance?
• What role do regional and international organizations play in supporting the nascent democracies?
• How does the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches influence democratic decision-making ?
• What are the key challenges faced by young democracies?
• What role does public opinion play in shaping democratic policies?
• Middle East democratization .
• How does the level of political corruption impact the functioning of democratic institutions?
• What impact does globalization have on the democratic governance of nation-states?
• What are the consequences of restrictions on freedom of expression in democratic societies?
• Social media regulation and future of democracy .
• What role do international democracy promotion programs play in supporting democratic transitions?
• How do different cultural and historical contexts shape the understanding and practice of democracy?
• Democracy and Western cultural values worldwide .
• What factors contribute to democratic backsliding in countries that have previously experienced democratic transitions?
• How does the presence of proportional representation contribute to inclusive and representative democratic governance?
• What role do civic education and political literacy play in a democracy?
• How does the level of social media usage impact the spread of disinformation and its effect on democratic processes?
• African political parties’ endeavour for the implementation of the democracy .
• How do citizen participation mechanisms, such as participatory budgeting, impact democratic decision-making?
• How does the level of political party system fragmentation impact the effectiveness of democratic governance?
• What role does the protection of minority rights play in establishing and sustaining democratic societies?
• How does the level of regional integration influence the democratic governance and decision-making of member states?
• The Australian Labor Party and the American Democrats: similarities and differences .
• What impact does income distribution have on citizens’ satisfaction with democratic systems?
• How does the presence of a strong civil service impact the capacity and efficiency of democratic governance?
• What factors contribute to successful democratic transitions in countries with a history of authoritarian rule ?
• How does the level of trust in key democratic institutions impact overall democratic stability?
• What factors contribute to economic failure in democracies ?
• What role does political leadership play in establishing and maintaining strong democratic systems?

Democracy and Elections Research Paper Topics

• The impact of voter ID laws on democratic participation.
• The influence of campaign finance spending on electoral outcomes.
• Political participation and voting as democracy features .
• The role of social media in shaping public opinion during elections.
• The effectiveness of electoral college systems in representing the will of the people.
• The effectiveness of international election observation missions in ensuring electoral integrity.
• The impact of electronic voting systems on election integrity.
• The role of political advertising in shaping voter preferences.
• Low voter participation in democratic countries .
• The relationship between political polarization and voter turnout.
• The effectiveness of voter education programs in promoting informed decision-making.
• The effect of voter suppression tactics on democratic participation.
• The influence of party endorsement on candidate success in elections.
• The impact of gender and ethnicity on political representation in elected offices.
• Voting: democracy, freedom, and political agency .
• The effectiveness of campaign debates in informing voter choices.
• The influence of social factors and peer networks on political affiliation and voting behavior.
• The effect of negative campaigning on voter perceptions and candidate success.
• The role of non-traditional media sources in shaping public opinion during elections.
• The role of technology in enhancing election monitoring and ensuring transparent and secure voting processes.
• Electoral systems in a democratic country .
• The influence of disinformation campaigns on voter behavior and their implications for electoral integrity.
• The challenges and opportunities of implementing online voting systems for improving accessibility and election integrity.
• The impact of non-voters and their reasons for not participating in the democratic process.
• The impact of campaign advertising on voter behavior in democratic elections.
• The role of social media platforms in electoral outcomes in democratic societies.
• “The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy” by Bouie .
• Electoral reforms and their effects on voter turnout and representation in democracies.
• The influence of demographic factors and socioeconomic status on voting patterns in democratic elections.
• The challenges and opportunities of implementing electronic voting systems to enhance the integrity and efficiency of democratic elections.

E-Democracy Research Topics

• Digital divide and its implications for e-democracy.
• Role of social media in promoting online political engagement.
• E-government and democracy .
• Challenges and opportunities for e-petitions as a form of democratic expression.
• Cybersecurity challenges in ensuring secure and reliable e-voting systems.
• Role of e-democracy in improving representation and inclusivity in decision-making processes.
• Ethical considerations in the collection and use of personal data for e-democracy purposes.
• Use of blockchain technology in enhancing transparency and trustworthiness in e-democracy.
• The use of technology in promoting transparency and accountability in government.
• American e-government and public administration .
• Influences of online political advertising on voter behavior.
• The potential of online deliberative platforms in fostering inclusive public discourse.
• The role of online communities in mobilizing citizens for political action.
• Effects of online platforms on political campaign strategies and communication tactics.
• Use of technology in expanding access to information and knowledge for informed citizenship.
• Strategies for building trust in e-government .
• Evaluation of online political education programs and their impact on citizen engagement.
• Open government initiatives and their role in fostering e-democracy .
• Digital activism and its effectiveness in driving social and political change .
• Online tools for monitoring and preventing disinformation and fake news in political discourse.
• Role of digital identity verification in ensuring the integrity of e-democracy processes.
• Challenges and opportunities for e-democracy in authoritarian regimes .
• Public trust and perceived legitimacy of e-democracy systems and processes.

✍🏻 Topics for Essays about Democracy

Democracy argumentative essay topics.

• The role of public protests in strengthening democracy.
• The role of youth engagement in shaping the future of democracy.
• Is the Democratic Party the Labour Party of the US ?
• Should there be limits on freedom of speech in a democracy to prevent hate speech?
• The tensions between national security and civil liberties in a democratic context.
• Is direct democracy a more effective form of governance than representative democracy?
• The United States is not really a democracy .
• The significance of an independent judiciary in upholding democratic principles.
• The importance of a robust and unbiased public education system for a thriving democracy.
• Compulsory voting: is it compatible with democracy ?
• The impact of income inequality on democratic participation and representation.
• The significance of constitutional reforms in addressing the challenges faced by democracies .
• Does the digital age pose a threat to the principles of democracy?
• Should prisoners have a right to vote in a democratic system?
• Are referendums effective tools for democratic decision-making?
• Democracy vs. other types of government .
• Does the media have a responsibility to promote democratic principles and accountability?
• Can a democratic government effectively balance national security and civil liberties ?
• Should there be limitations on the freedom of peaceful assembly and protest in a democracy?
• Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority .
• Is the rise of populist movements a threat to democratic values?
• Does globalization undermine national sovereignty and democratic decision-making?
• Democracy: Durbin’s, Duckworth’s, and Krishinamoorthi’s positions .
• Should judges be elected or appointed in a democratic system?
• Is a strong independent judiciary essential for a healthy democracy?
• Is the EU an example of a successful democratic regional integration project?
• How can we provide political representation for non-citizens in a democratic society?
• Is democracy a universal value, or should different cultures be allowed to adopt different governance models?
• Democracy in the US: is it real today ?
• Should democratic governments prioritize economic growth or social welfare policies ?
• Should there be restrictions on the power of political parties in a democracy?
• Is there a tension between individual rights and collective decision-making in a democratic society?
• The role of national identity and multiculturalism in shaping democratic societies.
• The effectiveness of citizen initiatives and participatory democracy.
• Federal system’s pros and cons from a democratic perspective .
• The importance of accountability and transparency in ensuring the functioning of democracy.
• Should religion play a role in political decision-making in a democracy?
• Does a two-party system hinder the development of democracy?
• The influence of corporate power on democratic decision-making processes.
• The tension between individual rights and collective needs in democratic societies.
• Has the US government become more of or less of a republic, a confederation, or a democracy ?
• The role of education in fostering active and informed citizenry in a democracy.
• Is a multi-party system more conducive to a healthy and inclusive democracy?
• Should there be restrictions on political advertising to ensure fairness and transparency in democratic elections?
• Should corporations have the same rights as individuals in democratic legal systems?
• Is it necessary to separate church and state in a democratic society?
• How democratic was the new Constitution and the Bill of Rights ?
• Should there be mandatory civics education to promote democratic values and participation?
• Should there be age restrictions on political officeholders in a democracy?
• Should digital voting be implemented to increase participation and transparency in elections?

American Democracy Essay Topics

• The historical development of American democracy: from the Founding Fathers to the present.
• The significance of the American Constitution and its amendments in ensuring democratic governance in the United States.
• Government: United States Constitution and democracy .
• The impact of the American Revolution on the birth of American democracy.
• The separation of powers and checks and balances in the US government .
• The significance of the Bill of Rights in protecting individual freedoms within American democracy.
• Democracy: the Unites States of America .
• The challenges and opportunities of citizen participation in American democratic processes.
• The contributions of influential figures such as Thomas Jefferson , James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton to the development of American democracy.
• Dahl’s “How Democratic Is the American Constitution?”
• The evolution of political parties in American democracy: from the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to the Democrats and Republicans.
• The role of the Constitution in establishing and safeguarding American democracy.
• The two-party system and democracy in the US .
• The impact of the Civil Rights Movement on expanding democratic rights and equality in America.
• The ways media influences public opinion and its impact on American democracy.
• The influence of money in American politics and its effects on democratic processes.
• American democracy v. the social democracy: the healthcare system .
• The impact of the women’s suffrage movement on democratic participation and gender equality.
• The role of activism and social movements in shaping American democracy .
• The influence of third-party candidates on American democracy and election outcomes.
• Advancing democracy in the United States .
• The challenges and reforms associated with the electoral college system in American democracy.
• The impact of the progressive movement on democratic governance and social welfare.
• Democracy and tyranny in the United States .
• The role of the American presidency in shaping and upholding democratic principles.
• The historical relationship between religious freedom and American democracy.
• The influence of the labor movement on workers’ rights and democratic policies.
• Analysis of democracy in the USA .
• The significance of the New Deal and Great Society programs in fostering economic fairness and democratic values.
• The impact of the Cold War on American democracy and the preservation of democratic ideals abroad.
• Democracy in the United States of America .
• The challenges and reforms associated with campaign finance regulations in American democracy.
• The impact of modern technology on American democracy, including social media, data privacy , and online political engagement.
• Democracy in America: elites, interest groups, and average citizens .
• The significance of presidential debates in shaping public opinion and democratic decision-making.
• The role of state and local governments in American democracy and their relationship with the federal government .
• The impact of the Electoral College on presidential elections and its implications for democratic representation.
• Interest groups in the American democratic system .
• The relationship between media bias and democratic discourse in American democracy.
• The impact of the populist movement, both historically and in contemporary politics, on American democracy.
• The role of the First Amendment in protecting and promoting free speech in American democracy.
• “What Republicans and Democrats Are Doing in the States Where They Have Total Power”: analysis .
• The influence of foreign policy decisions on American democracy and the balance between national security and democratic values.
• American women’s historical struggles and triumphs in achieving suffrage and fighting for equal rights in American democracy.
• The shifting nature of American democracy .
• The impact of the Black Lives Matter movement on public discourse, democratic activism, and policy change.
• The labor movement’s influence on workers’ rights, economic policies, and democratic representation.
• The US democracy’s promotion in the Middle East .
• The significance of federalism in the American democratic system and the balance of power between states and the federal government.
• The importance of a free and independent press in American democracy.
• Democratic traditions in early American colonies .
• The influence of religious groups on American politics, democratic decision-making, and social policy.
• The role of non-governmental organizations in promoting democratic values, human rights, and social justice in America.
• Edmund Morgan: the views of American democracy .
• The protection of minority rights and the principle of majority rule in American democracy.
• The role of civil society organizations in promoting and strengthening American democracy.

Jacksonian Democracy Essay Topics

• The main principles and goals of Jacksonian Democracy.
• The impact of Jacksonian Democracy on expanding voting and political participation.
• Andrew Jackson’s first inaugural address .
• The role of populism in shaping Jacksonian Democracy.
• The controversy surrounding Jackson’s Indian Removal policies .
• The influence of Jacksonian Democracy on the development of the two-party system.
• The impact of the “Kitchen Cabinet” and informal advisors on Jackson’s presidency.
• The economic policies of Jacksonian Democracy and its effect on the national economy.
• The antebellum capitalism and Jeffersonians and Jacksonians capitalist ideals .
• The expansion of land ownership and westward expansion under Jacksonian Democracy.
• The role of women in Jacksonian Democracy and the early suffrage movement .
• The controversy surrounding Jackson’s veto of the Bank of the United States.
• The impact of Jacksonian Democracy on Native American rights and sovereignty.
• The legacy of Jacksonian Democracy and its influence on subsequent political movements.
• The significance of the Democratic Party’s rise during the Jacksonian era.
• Andrew Jackson presidency: society, politics, veto .
• The impact of Jacksonian Democracy on the growth of economic opportunities for common people.
• The relationship between Jacksonian Democracy and the rise of American nationalism.
• The role of newspapers and media in promoting or opposing Jacksonian Democracy.
• The controversies surrounding Jackson’s removal of government deposits from the Bank of the United States.
• The response of marginalized groups, such as Native Americans and African Americans, to Jacksonian Democracy.
• The impact of Jacksonian Democracy on the development of the American presidency and executive power.
• The long-term effects of Jacksonian Democracy on American political and social identity.

Questions about Democracy for Essays

• What are the key principles and values of democracy?
• How does democracy promote individual freedoms and rights?
• “Democracy and Collective Identity in the EU and the USA”: article analysis .
• What are the different forms of democracy, and how do they vary?
• How does democracy ensure accountability and transparency in governance?
• Concepts of democracy and wealth .
• What is the role of elections in a democratic system?
• How does democracy promote political participation and citizen engagement?
• Discussion of democracy assignment .
• What are the main challenges to democracy in the modern world?
• How does democracy protect minority rights and prevent majority tyranny?
• What are the political concepts of democracy and nationalism ?
• How does the media influence democratic processes and outcomes?
• What role do political parties play in a democratic system?
• What are representative democracy and its constituents ?
• How does democracy address social and economic inequalities?
• What is the relationship between democracy and human rights ?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of direct democracy?
• How does democracy impact economic development and prosperity?
• Democracy description as a political system .
• What role does the judiciary play in a democratic system?
• How does democracy address issues of social justice and equality ?
• What are the implications of globalization for democracy?
• Can democracy exist without a well-informed citizenry and a free press?
• Democratic and authoritarian states .
• How does democracy respond to extremist ideologies and populism?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of representative democracy?
• How does democracy promote peaceful transitions of power?
• How does democracy foster social cohesion and national unity?
• How does democracy ensure the protection of civil liberties?
• What is the nature and performance of Indonesia’s new democracy ?
• How does democracy reconcile the tension between majority rule and minority rights?
• What are the roles of civil society and non-governmental organizations in a democracy?
• How does democracy deal with issues of environmental sustainability ?
• Democracy: evolution of the political thought .
• What are the effects of money and lobbying on democratic processes?
• How does democracy guarantee freedom of speech and expression?
• What is the Canadian political culture and democracy ?
• What is the impact of education and civic education on democracy?
• How does democracy address the challenges of pluralism and diversity?
• What are the implications of digital technologies for democracy?
• The French Revolution: failed democracy and Napoleon .
• What role does international cooperation play in fostering democracy?
• How does democracy address the power imbalance between different societal groups?
• What are the reasons for the failure of democracy in South America ?
• What are the historical origins of democracy and its evolution over time?
• How does democracy protect the rights of marginalized and vulnerable populations?
• What are the political apathy and low voter turnout consequences in a democracy?
• How does democracy handle situations of crisis and emergency?
• Democracy as a socio-political phenomenon .
• What is the role of public opinion in democratic decision-making?
• How does democracy ensure fair representation and inclusivity ?
• What are the mechanisms in place to hold elected officials accountable in a democracy?

🎤 Topics about Democracy for Speeches

• The importance of democracy in safeguarding individual freedoms and human rights.
• The historical evolution of democracy: from ancient Athens to modern-day governance.
• The essential concepts and principles of democracy .
• Democratic revolutions and their impact on shaping the world.
• The role of citizen participation in a thriving democracy.
• Exploring the concept of direct democracy: can it work on a large scale?
• Backsliding of democracy: examples and preventive measures .
• The role of media in fostering accountability in a democracy.
• Striving for gender equality and women’s empowerment within democratic frameworks.
• Democracy and efforts to emphasize it .
• The influence of money and campaign finance on democratic processes.
• Democracy and social justice: addressing inequalities and discrimination.
• The impact of education in building a democratic society.
• The Republican and Democratic parties: issues, beliefs, and philosophy .
• Democracy and the environment: Promoting sustainable practices .
• The relation between democracy and economic development.
• Mexico’s globalization and democratization .
• The significance of a strong, independent judiciary in upholding the rule of law in a democracy.
• The potential benefits and drawbacks of digital technology on democracy.
• Youth engagement and the future of democracy.
• Democracy: equality of income and egalitarianism .
• Democracy in the face of political polarization and extremism.
• Democracy and cultural diversity : balancing majority rule and minority rights.
• Democratic society and the capitalist system .
• The importance of civic education in nurturing active and informed citizens.
• Democracy and peace: how democratic nations tend to avoid armed conflicts .
• The role of international organizations in promoting democracy worldwide.
• The struggle for democracy: bureaucracy .
• Social media and democracy: examining their impact on political discourse.
• Democracy and global governance: the need for collaborative decision-making.
• Democratization processes that have reshaped societies .
• The implications of demographic changes on democratic representation.
• The challenges of ensuring democracy in times of crisis and emergency.
• Democracy and immigration : the role of inclusive policies and integration.
• Corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo .
• The responsibility of democratic nations in addressing global challenges (e.g., climate change , pandemics).
• The effects of fake news and disinformation on democratic societies.
• Democrats and communists in 1950 .
• Democratic reforms: lessons learned from successful transitions.
• The role of intellectuals and artists in promoting democratic values and ideals.
• Democracy and the future of work : navigating technological advancements and automation.
• Safeguard of democracy is education .
• The importance of strong civil society organizations to democracy.
• Democracy and national security: striking the balance between safety and civil liberties.
• Representing the democracy of Florida .
• The significance of a robust social welfare system in ensuring democratic stability.
• Democracy and accountability in the age of surveillance and privacy concerns .
• The future prospects of democracy: challenges and opportunities in the 21st century.
• Democratic regime and liberation movements .
• The role of transitional justice in post-authoritarian democracies.
• Democratic decision-making: weighing majority opinion against expert knowledge.
• The topic of democracy in various speeches .
• Democracy and educational policy: the need for equitable access to quality education.
• The influence of cultural, religious, and ideological diversity on democratic governance.
• Democracy and intergenerational justice: balancing present needs with future aspirations.
• Biden warns of US peril from Trump’s ‘dagger’ at democracy .

Democracy Debate Topics

• Is direct democracy a practical and effective form of governance?
• Should there be term limits for political officeholders in a democracy?
• Social democratic welfare state .
• Is compulsory voting necessary for a thriving democratic system?
• Is money in politics a threat to democratic integrity?
• Should there be limits on campaign spending in democratic elections?
• Social democracy vs. social policy .
• Should felons have the right to vote in a democracy?
• Can social media platforms ensure fair and unbiased political discourse in a democracy?
• Why does democracy work and why doesn’t it ?
• Is proportional representation more democratic than a winner-takes-all electoral system?
• Should there be stricter regulations on political lobbying in a democracy?
• Is it necessary to establish a global democracy to tackle global challenges ?
• Is the concept of majority rule compatible with protecting minority rights in a democracy?
• Is populism a threat or an asset to democracy?
• The struggle for democracy: how politics captures people’s interest ?
• Should the voting age be lowered to increase youth participation in democracy?
• Should corporations have a say in democratic decision-making processes?
• Is a strong centralized government or decentralized governance better for democracy?
• Should the internet be regulated to protect its users from misinformation?
• Is democracy the best form of government ?
• Should religious institutions have a role in democratic governance?
• Is international intervention justified to promote democracy in authoritarian regimes ?
• Is a multi-party democracy more representative than a two-party system?
• Should immigration policies be determined through democratic processes?

✅ Outline for an Essay About Democracy

We’ve prepared a mini guide to help you structure your essay on democracy. You’ll also find some examples below.

Democracy Essay Introduction

Would you like to learn how to write a strong essay introduction? We are here for you! The introduction is the first paragraph of your essay, so it needs to provide context, capture the reader’s attention, and present the main topic or argument of an essay or paper. It also explains what readers can expect from the rest of the text. A good introduction should include:

• Hook . A hook is a compelling, attention-grabbing opening sentence designed to engage the reader’s interest and curiosity. It aims to draw the reader into the essay or paper by presenting an intriguing fact, anecdote, question, or statement related to the topic.
• Background information . Background information provides context and helps readers understand the subject matter before delving into the main discussion or argument.
• Thesis statement . It’s a sentence in the introduction part of the essay. A thesis statement introduces the paper’s main point, argument, or purpose, guiding and informing the reader about the essay’s focus and direction.

Hook : “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” ― Winston S. Churchill.

Thesis statement : Democracy has endured the test of time, and although other forms of governance have failed, democracy has stayed firm.

Essay on Democracy: Body Paragraphs

Body paragraphs are critical in writing a great college essay. There are 5 main steps you can follow to write a compelling body paragraph:

• Create a topic sentence.
• Provide the evidence.
• Explain how the evidence relates to the main points.
• Explain why your arguments are relevant.
• Add transition to the following paragraph.

Topic sentence : In a democratic system of governance, supreme authority rests with the people and is exercised through a framework of representation, often involving regular, unrestricted elections.

Supporting evidence : Democracy allows residents to participate in creating laws and public policies by electing their leaders; consequently, voters should be educated to select the best candidate for the ruling government.

Essay about Democracy: Conclusion

The conclusion is the final part of an academic essay. It should restate the thesis statement and briefly summarize the key points. Refrain from including new ideas or adding information to the conclusion.

There are 3 crucial components to the conclusion:

• Rephrased thesis statement.
• Summary of main points.
• Thought-provoking or memorable closing statement.

Rephrased thesis statement : To conclude, democracy is a form of government that has proven its effectiveness and resilience in contrast to other governance systems.

We hope you’ve found our article interesting and learned some new information! If so, feel free to share it with your friends and leave a comment below.

• Thesis Statements – The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• How to Write a Five-Paragraph Essay, With Examples | Grammarly
• Creating a Thesis Statement, Thesis Statement Tips – Purdue OWL® – Purdue University
• Paragraphs & Topic Sentences: Writing Guides: Writing Tutorial Services: Indiana University Bloomington
• How to Write a Topic Sentence (With Examples and Tips) | Indeed.com

414 Proposal Essay Topics for Projects, Research, & Proposal Arguments

371 fun argumentative essay topics for 2024.

share this!

March 26, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Essays on democracy draw attention to critical threats, explore safeguards ahead of Jan. 6

by Tracy DeStazio, University of Notre Dame

Following the events of Jan. 6, 2021—when a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol building in an effort to interrupt the certification process of the 2020 presidential election—experts began to question how to protect the next presidential election from a similar threat. To that end, University of Notre Dame political scientists have partnered with preeminent scholars of democracy from across the country to produce a set of recommendations to strengthen and safeguard democracy in America.

The University's Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy established the January 6th, 2025, Project in an effort to understand the social, political, psychological and demographic factors that led to that troublesome day in the capital.

By pursuing research, teaching and public engagement , the project offers insight into how American democracy got to this point and how to strengthen and protect it, while emphasizing how to prepare for a similar attack many deem imminent on Jan. 6, 2025, when Congress seeks to certify the 2024 presidential election results. The project includes 34 members who represent various disciplines and leading universities—10 of whom hail from Notre Dame's faculty.

Matthew E.K. Hall, director of the Rooney Center, said one of the project's first goals was to create a collection of essays written by its members to be included in a special issue of The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , which was published this month. These essays aim to draw attention to the vulnerabilities in our democratic system and the threats building against it, and to create consensus on ways to remedy both problems.

The authors set out to tackle the following tough questions, but from different perspectives: How serious are the threats to our democracy, how did we get to this point, and what can we do to fix the situation? The 14 essays are broken down into categories, falling under the headings of "'Us' Versus 'Them,'" "Dangerous Ideas" and "Undermining Democratic Institutions." With most pieces being co-authored by faculty from multiple institutions, the collection offers a collaborative approach to evaluating what led America to this crisis and how to avert it.

David Campbell, director of the Notre Dame Democracy Initiative and the Packey J. Dee Professor of American Democracy in the Department of Political Science, described the project as "an example of how Notre Dame can be a national leader on the issue of preserving American democracy. Not only do we have top scholars working on the issue, but we can provide a forum for a community of scholars across many leading universities. Maintaining democracy will require all hands on deck."

In the collection's introduction, Hall explained the backdrop of what led America to this point and why these essays help acknowledge the challenges we are facing as a nation.

"We are basically living through a revival of fascist politics in the U.S.," Hall wrote, "where politicians are using divisive rhetoric to separate us into an 'us' versus 'them' paradigm—left versus right, white versus Black, rich versus poor, urban versus rural, religious versus secular—the divisions go on and on."

Hall estimated that between 25 and 30% of Americans have consistently endorsed some fascist ideas such as racial oppression, conspiracy theories and authoritarianism. "Ordinarily, this consistent minority is held in check by the democratic process," Hall explained.

"These candidates don't even get nominated for major political positions because their co-partisan allies don't want to lose the general election.

"But when our politics become this intensely polarized, most partisans will support their party no matter who is nominated," he continued. "As a result, politicians pushing these fascist ideas can gain power by taking over one political party and then exploiting the polarization to win elections. Once taking power, they will likely manipulate the electoral process to remain in power."

Consequently, Hall said, fascist leaders are able to exploit these social divisions to break down basic social norms and shared understandings about American politics. This pushes huge swaths of society toward accepting dangerous ideas that would normally be rejected, such as expanded executive power, intense animosity toward political opponents, a wavering support for free speech, and political candidates who deny election losses.

This weakened support for democratic norms enables attacks on our democratic institutions, such as ignoring court rulings, enacting voter suppression laws and—most shockingly (as in the case of Jan. 6)—openly subverting elections.

With the political situation as dire as many feel it to be, the January 6th, 2025, Project's essays outline a few practical steps that can be taken to strengthen and safeguard democracy in America.

For example, Hall said, as the nation moves forward into this next election year, American voters have to stay focused on the "deliberate denial of reality" on the part of some politicians so that they can discern the difference between lies, truths and just plain distractions.

"The more we lose touch with basic facts and accept misinformation, conspiracies and contradictory claims as the norm in our society," he said, "the more vulnerable we are to losing our democracy.

"Even more importantly, we have to be willing to sacrifice short-term political gains in order to preserve the long-term stability of our democracy. That might mean holding your nose to vote for candidates that you would not otherwise support."

Hall added that Americans must redouble their devotion to democratic principles such as open elections and free speech, and states should adopt institutional reforms that remove partisans from the electoral process (for example, employing nonpartisan election commissions). He also noted the importance of paying close attention to efforts that divide groups of Americans, especially those that portray outgroup members as evil or less than human.

The members of the project hope that by honestly acknowledging the challenges our nation is facing, understanding the mistakes that were made and recognizing the vulnerabilities in our system that led us to this situation—and by resolving to fix these issues—we can pull our country's political system back from the edge of the cliff before it's too late.

"The public needs to take these critical threats seriously and we're hoping that these essays draw attention to them, and help to build consensus about the underlying problems in our politics and potential remedies," Hall concluded.

Democracy is one of several University-wide initiatives emerging from Notre Dame's recently released Strategic Framework . The Democracy Initiative will further establish Notre Dame as a global leader in the study of democracy, a convenor for conversations about and actions to preserve democracy, and a model for the formation of civically engaged citizens and public servants.

Provided by University of Notre Dame

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Romania center explores world's most powerful laser

22 minutes ago

A cosmic 'speed camera' just revealed the staggering speed of neutron star jets in a world first

18 hours ago

Saturday Citations: 100-year-old milk, hot qubits and another banger from the Event Horizon Telescope project

21 hours ago

Curiosity rover searches for new clues about Mars' ancient water

Mar 30, 2024

Study says since 1979 climate change has made heat waves last longer, spike hotter, hurt more people

Scientist taps into lobsters' unusual habits to conquer the more than 120-year quest to farm them

Mar 29, 2024

Blind people can hear and feel April's total solar eclipse with new technology

Mapping the best route for a spacecraft traveling beyond the sun's sphere of influence

Researchers outline new approach in search for dark matter through future DUNE research project

Researchers reveal evolutionary path of important proteins

Relevant physicsforums posts, cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better.

11 minutes ago

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics?

6 hours ago

The new Shogun show

History of railroad safety - spotlight on current derailments.

Mar 27, 2024

Metal, Rock, Instrumental Rock and Fusion

Who should have been the 4th laureate in the nobel prize in physics.

Mar 25, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Political rhetoric changes views on democratic principles, study finds

Oct 25, 2023

'On the brink of a new civil war': Survey highlights fragility of American democracy, stark partisan divides

Nov 3, 2022

The majority of Americans do not support anti-democratic behavior, even when elected officials do: Study

Mar 18, 2024

Preventing another 'Jan. 6' starts by changing how elections are certified, experts say

Mar 20, 2024

Report: Political violence threatens health of US democracy

Nov 7, 2023

Democratic backslide a threat to free elections globally: Report

Mar 7, 2024

Recommended for you

Your emotional reaction to climate change may impact the policies you support, study finds

Value-added tax data could help countries prepare better for crises

New study suggests that while social media changes over decades, conversation dynamics stay the same

World Happiness Report: Why we might be measuring happiness wrong

Advanced statistical analysis highlights the role of interaction between US Supreme Court judges

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Andrew Jackson — Andrew Jackson And His Effect On American Democracy

Andrew Jackson and His Effect on American Democracy

• Categories: Andrew Jackson Democracy in America

About this sample

Words: 2417 |

13 min read

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 2417 | Pages: 5 | 13 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 645 words

2 pages / 986 words

3 pages / 1243 words

1 pages / 393 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Andrew Jackson

How democratic was Andrew Jackson? Andrew Jackson’s belief in Democracy was that all branches and agencies of the government must listen to and follow the wishes of the people. He wanted to change the way the country had been [...]

Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, is often hailed as a hero for his role in expanding democracy and defending the interests of the common man. However, a closer examination of his actions reveals a [...]

The seventh President of the United States is a figure of great controversy. While some view him as a hero who championed the common man and defended American democracy, others see him as a villain who perpetuated racism, [...]

Andrew Jackson presidency was marked by controversial policies and actions that have led to debates over whether he truly embodied democratic ideals. This essay will analyze the democratic nature of Andrew Jackson's presidency [...]

Andrew Jackson was the president of the common man because he greatly improved the economic aspect of life for white men during his presidency. However, some might argue that Jackson was not president of the common man because [...]

Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, is a figure of great controversy. While some hail him as a hero and a champion of the common man, others see him as a villain who perpetuated racism, violence, and the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Lost John Steinbeck essay about American democracy published

How About McCarthyism? was originally published in France in 1954 and its warning of ‘the taking of power by a self-interested group’ has now been translated

An article by John Steinbeck about American democracy, written 70 years ago, will be published in English for the first time this week.

The piece, titled How About McCarthyism? was originally published in 1954 in French in Le Figaro Littéraire, although Steinbeck wrote it in English. The piece is being published in English in the Strand Magazine , a US-based print magazine that publishes short fiction, articles and interviews.

The piece, said Andrew Gulli, managing editor, suggests that American democracy has always and will in the future face threats from within, but in the end will emerge stronger.

The title of the article refers to the phenomenon named after US senator Joseph McCarthy, who, during the cold war period, aimed to root out secret communists he thought were present in American institutions, including in government. A number of his accusations were found to be false, and he began to lose popularity in the mid 1950s.

In his article, Steinbeck writes: “We have always had a McCarthy. I could list names and movements going back to the beginning of our history. And always the end was the same … It changes its name every few years. It always uses the bait of improvement or safety.”

Steinbeck warns of “the taking of power by a self-interested group at the expense of the whole”.

Strand Magazine requested rights to publish the original piece from the Steinbeck estate.

Gulli said: “We often think of Steinbeck as a fiction author, but this shows the political side to him where despite all the pain and destroyed lives caused by McCarthyism he takes a longer-term view that it’ll be a distant memory.

“But the primary message from Steinbeck is a prescient one and warns readers be under no illusions that once McCarthyism ends the rest would be smooth sailing. He suggests that our democracy will face more threats from within and from looking at the news headlines every day, it seems his fears were justified.”

after newsletter promotion

Steinbeck is perhaps most famous for his book The Grapes of Wrath , regarded as one of the great American novels. It follows the Joad family, who are torn apart by poverty and desperation in the Great Depression. The novel grew out of a series of newspaper articles Steinbeck wrote for the San Francisco News.

Strand Magazine has previously released unseen short stories by Shirley Jackson , among others.

• John Steinbeck

Most viewed

Safeguarding Democracy Essays Reflect on Threats and Solutions Post-January 6

T he events of January 6, 2021, marked a pivotal moment in American history, shaking the foundations of democracy to its core. As the nation grappled with the aftermath of a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol, scholars and experts turned their attention to understanding the underlying threats to democratic institutions and charting a course toward safeguarding their integrity. In response to these pressing concerns, the January 6th, 2025, Project emerged—a collaborative effort led by the University of Notre Dame’s Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy. Through a series of insightful essays, scholars from diverse disciplines explore the challenges facing American democracy and propose measures to fortify its resilience in the face of adversity.

Examining the Threat Landscape: At the heart of the January 6th, 2025, Project lies a critical examination of the threats posed to democracy in the United States. Scholars delve into the underlying factors that contributed to the events of January 6, shedding light on the erosion of democratic norms and the rise of divisive ideologies. Through meticulous analysis, the essays highlight the dangers of political polarization, misinformation, and the exploitation of social divisions by opportunistic leaders. By confronting the realities of a political landscape marked by ideological extremism and authoritarian tendencies, the project aims to galvanize efforts to safeguard the foundations of democracy.

Addressing the Roots of Division: Central to the project’s mission is the exploration of the underlying divisions that have fueled societal unrest and political upheaval. Authors examine the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality that has permeated American politics, dissecting the rhetoric of division and its corrosive impact on democratic discourse. From racial tensions to economic disparities, the essays illuminate the fault lines that threaten to undermine social cohesion and civic trust. By confronting these deep-seated divisions with nuance and empathy, the project seeks to foster dialogue and reconciliation in pursuit of a more inclusive democracy.

Proposing Solutions for a Resilient Democracy: In response to the multifaceted challenges facing American democracy, the January 6th, 2025, Project offers a comprehensive set of recommendations aimed at strengthening democratic institutions and restoring public trust. Scholars advocate for measures to combat misinformation, enhance electoral integrity, and promote civic engagement. From nonpartisan election commissions to initiatives promoting media literacy, the essays present a roadmap for protecting democracy in an era of uncertainty. By prioritizing the preservation of democratic norms and values, the project charts a course toward a more resilient and inclusive political system.

As the nation grapples with the legacy of January 6, 2021, the January 6th, 2025, Project stands as a beacon of hope for the future of American democracy. Through rigorous scholarship and thoughtful analysis, scholars from across the country have come together to confront the existential threats facing democratic governance. By drawing attention to critical challenges and proposing actionable solutions, the project offers a roadmap for strengthening democracy and preserving the principles upon which it stands. As we look ahead to the next presidential election and beyond, the insights gleaned from the project’s essays serve as a call to action for all those committed to defending democracy in the face of adversity.

• News Releases

Essays on democracy draw attention to critical threats, explore safeguards ahead of Jan. 6

University of Notre Dame

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

Credit: Matt Cashore/University of Notre Dame

Following the events of Jan. 6, 2021 — when a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol building in an effort to interrupt the certification process of the 2020 presidential election — experts began to question how to protect the next presidential election from a similar threat. To that end, University of Notre Dame political scientists have partnered with preeminent scholars of democracy from across the country to produce a set of recommendations to strengthen and safeguard democracy in America.

The University’s Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy established the January 6th, 2025, Project in an effort to understand the social, political, psychological and demographic factors that led to that troublesome day in our nation’s capital. By pursuing research, teaching and public engagement, the project offers insight into how American democracy got to this point and how to strengthen and protect it, while emphasizing how to prepare for a similar attack many deem imminent on Jan. 6, 2025, when Congress seeks to certify the 2024 presidential election results. The project includes 34 members who represent various disciplines and leading universities — 10 of whom hail from Notre Dame’s faculty.

Matthew E.K. Hall , director of the Rooney Center, said one of the project’s first goals was to create a collection of essays written by its members to be included in a special issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , which was published this month. These essays aim to draw attention to the vulnerabilities in our democratic system and the threats building against it, and to create consensus on ways to remedy both problems.

The authors set out to tackle the following tough questions, but from different perspectives: How serious are the threats to our democracy, how did we get to this point, and what can we do to fix the situation? The 14 essays are broken down into categories, falling under the headings of “‘Us’ Versus ‘Them,’” “Dangerous Ideas” and “Undermining Democratic Institutions.” With most pieces being co-authored by faculty from multiple institutions, the collection offers a collaborative approach to evaluating what led America to this crisis and how to avert it.

David Campbell , director of the Notre Dame Democracy Initiative and the Packey J. Dee Professor of American Democracy in the Department of Political Science , described the project as “an example of how Notre Dame can be a national leader on the issue of preserving American democracy. Not only do we have top scholars working on the issue, but we can provide a forum for a community of scholars across many leading universities. Maintaining democracy will require all hands on deck.”

In the collection’s introduction, Hall explained the backdrop of what led America to this point and why these essays help acknowledge the challenges we are facing as a nation. “We are basically living through a revival of fascist politics in the U.S.,” Hall wrote, “where politicians are using divisive rhetoric to separate us into an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ paradigm — left versus right, white versus Black, rich versus poor, urban versus rural, religious versus secular — the divisions go on and on.”

Hall estimated that between 25 and 30 percent of Americans have consistently endorsed some fascist ideas such as racial oppression, conspiracy theories and authoritarianism. “Ordinarily, this consistent minority is held in check by the democratic process,” Hall explained. “These candidates don’t even get nominated for major political positions because their co-partisan allies don’t want to lose the general election.

“But when our politics become this intensely polarized, most partisans will support their party no matter who is nominated,” he continued. “As a result, politicians pushing these fascist ideas can gain power by taking over one political party and then exploiting the polarization to win elections. Once taking power, they will likely manipulate the electoral process to remain in power.”

Consequently, Hall said, fascist leaders are able to exploit these social divisions to break down basic social norms and shared understandings about American politics. This pushes huge swaths of society toward accepting dangerous ideas that would normally be rejected, such as expanded executive power, intense animosity toward political opponents, a wavering support for free speech, and political candidates who deny election losses. This weakened support for democratic norms enables attacks on our democratic institutions, such as ignoring court rulings, enacting voter suppression laws and — most shockingly (as in the case of Jan. 6) — openly subverting elections.

With the political situation as dire as many feel it to be, the January 6th, 2025, Project’s essays outline a few practical steps that can be taken to strengthen and safeguard democracy in America.

For example, Hall said, as the nation moves forward into this next election year, American voters have to stay focused on the “deliberate denial of reality” on the part of some politicians so that they can discern the difference between lies, truths and just plain distractions.

“The more we lose touch with basic facts and accept misinformation, conspiracies and contradictory claims as the norm in our society,” he said, “the more vulnerable we are to losing our democracy.

“Even more importantly, we have to be willing to sacrifice short-term political gains in order to preserve the long-term stability of our democracy. That might mean holding your nose to vote for candidates that you would not otherwise support.”

Hall added that Americans must redouble their devotion to democratic principles such as open elections and free speech, and states should adopt institutional reforms that remove partisans from the electoral process (for example, employing nonpartisan election commissions). He also noted the importance of paying close attention to efforts that divide groups of Americans, especially those that portray outgroup members as evil or less than human.

The members of the project hope that by honestly acknowledging the challenges our nation is facing, understanding the mistakes that were made and recognizing the vulnerabilities in our system that led us to this situation — and by resolving to fix these issues — we can pull our country’s political system back from the edge of the cliff before it’s too late.

“The public needs to take these critical threats seriously and we’re hoping that these essays draw attention to them, and help to build consensus about the underlying problems in our politics and potential remedies,” Hall concluded.

Notre Dame faculty who are members of the January 6th, 2025, Project include David Campbell , the Packey J. Dee Professor of American Democracy; Darren Davis , the Snyder Family Mission Professor of Political Science; Luis Fraga , the Rev. Donald P. McNeill, C.S.C., Professor in Transformative Latino Leadership; Matthew E.K. Hall , the David A. Potenziani Memorial College Professor of Constitutional Studies; Jeffrey Harden , the Andrew J. McKenna Family Associate Professor of Political Science; Geoffrey Layman , professor and chair of the Department of Political Science; Rachel Porter , assistant professor of political science; Ricardo Ramirez , associate professor of political science; Erin Rossiter , the Nancy Reeves Dreux Assistant Professor of Political Science; and Christina Wolbrecht , the C. Robert and Margaret Hanley Family Director of the Notre Dame Washington Program and professor of political science.

Democracy is one of several University-wide initiatives emerging from Notre Dame’s recently released Strategic Framework . The Democracy Initiative will further establish Notre Dame as a global leader in the study of democracy, a convenor for conversations about and actions to preserve democracy, and a model for the formation of civically engaged citizens and public servants. The Democracy Initiative will connect research, education and policy work across multiple campus units and will extend Notre Dame’s voice to policymakers and federal agencies in Washington, D.C.

Contact:  Tracy DeStazio, associate director of media relations, 574-631-9958 or [email protected]

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

10.1177/00027162241234174

Method of Research

Commentary/editorial

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

The January 6th, 2025, Project: Fascist Politics and the Rising Threats to American Democracy

Article Publication Date

20-Mar-2024

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Additional Multimedia

Original Source

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

What can improve democracy, ideas from people in 24 countries, in their own words.

This Pew Research Center analysis on views of how to improve democracy uses data from nationally representative surveys conducted in 24 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. All responses are weighted to be representative of the adult population in each country.

For non-U.S. data, this analysis draws on nationally representative surveys of 27,285 adults conducted from Feb. 20 to May 22, 2023. All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Surveys were conducted face-to-face with adults in Argentina, Brazil, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland and South Africa. In Australia, we used a mixed-mode probability-based online panel. Read more about international survey methodology .

In the U.S., we surveyed 3,576 adults from March 20 to March 26, 2023. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Researchers examined random samples of English responses, machine-translated non-English responses, and non-English responses translated by a professional translation firm to develop a codebook for the main topics mentioned across the 24 countries. The codebook was iteratively improved via practice coding and calculations of intercoder reliability until a final selection of 17 substantive codes was formally adopted. (For more on the codebook, refer to Appendix C .)

To apply the codebook to the full collection of open-ended responses, a team of Pew Research Center coders and professional translators were trained to code English and non-English responses. Coders in both groups coded random samples and were evaluated for consistency and accuracy. They were asked to independently code responses only after reaching an acceptable threshold for intercoder reliability. (For more on the coding methodology, refer to Appendix A .)

There is some variation in whether and how people responded to our open-ended question. In each country surveyed, some respondents said that they did not understand the question, did not know how to answer or did not want to answer. This share of adults ranged from 4% in Spain to 47% in the U.S. 

In some countries, people also tended to mention fewer things that would improve democracy in their country relative to people surveyed elsewhere. For example, across the 24 countries surveyed, a median of 73% mentioned only one topic in our codebook (e.g., politicians). The share in South Korea is much higher, with 92% suggesting only one area of improvement when describing what they think would improve democracy. In comparison, about a quarter or more mention two areas of improvement in France, Spain, Sweden and the U.S.

These differences help explain why the share giving a particular answer in certain publics may appear much lower than others, even if it is the top- ranked suggestion for improving democracy. To give a specific example, 10% of respondents in Poland mention politicians, while 18% do so in South Africa – yet the topic is ranked second in Poland and third in South Africa. Given this discrepancy, researchers have chosen to highlight not only the share of the public that mentions a given topic but also its relative ranking among all topics coded, both in text and in graphics.

Here is the question used for this report , along with coded responses for each country, and the survey methodology .

Open-ended responses highlighted in the text of this report were chosen to represent the key themes researchers identified. They have been edited for clarity and, in some cases, translated into English by a professional firm. Some responses have also been shortened for brevity.

Pew Research Center surveys have long found that people in many countries are dissatisfied with their democracy and want major changes to their political systems – and this year is no exception . But high and growing rates of discontent certainly raise the question: What do people think could fix things?

We set out to answer this by asking more than 30,000 respondents in 24 countries an open-ended question: “What do you think would help improve the way democracy in your country is working?” While the second- and third-most mentioned priorities vary greatly, across most countries surveyed, there is one clear top answer: Democracy can be improved with better or different politicians.

People want politicians who are more responsive to their needs and who are more competent and honest, among other factors. People also focus on questions of descriptive representation – the importance of having politicians with certain characteristics such as a specific race, religion or gender.

Respondents also think citizens can improve their own democracy. Across most of the 24 countries surveyed, issues of public participation and of different behavior from the people themselves are a top-five priority.

Other topics that come up regularly include:

• Economic reform , especially reforms that will enhance job creation.
• Government reform , including implementing term limits, adjusting the balance of power between institutions and other factors.

We explore these topics and the others we coded in the following chapters:

• Politicians, changing leadership and political parties ( Chapter 1 )
• Government reform, special interests and the media ( Chapter 2 )
• Economic and policy changes ( Chapter 3 )
• Citizen behavior and individual rights and equality ( Chapter 4 )
• Electoral reform and direct democracy ( Chapter 5 )
• Rule of law, safety and the judicial system ( Chapter 6 )

You can also read people’s answers in their own words in our interactive data essay and quote sorter: “How People in 24 Countries Think Democracy Can Improve.” Many responses in the quote sorter and throughout this report appear in translation; for selected quotes in their original language, visit this spreadsheet .

The survey was conducted from Feb. 20 to May 22, 2023, in 24 countries and 36 different languages. Below, we highlight some key themes, drawn from the open-ended responses and the 17 rigorously coded substantive topics.

How politicians can improve

In almost every country surveyed, changes to politicians are the most commonly mentioned way to improve democracy. People broadly call for three types of improvements: better representation , increased competence and a higher level of responsiveness . They also call for politicians to be less corrupt or less influenced by special interests.

Representation

“Bringing in more diverse voices, rather than mostly wealthy White men.” Woman, 30, Australia

First, people want to see politicians from different groups in society – though which groups people want represented run the gamut. In Japan, for example, one woman said democracy would improve if there were “more diversity and more women parliamentarians.” In Kenya, having leaders “from all tribes” is seen as a way to make democracy work better. People also call for younger voices and politicians from “poor backgrounds,” among other groups. The opposing views of two American respondents, though, highlight why satisfying everyone is difficult:

“Most politicians in office right now are rich, Christian and old. Their overwhelmingly Christian views lead to laws and decisions that not only limit personal freedoms like abortion and gay marriage, but also discriminate against minority religions and their practices.”

– Man, 23, U.S.

“We need to stop worrying about putting people in positions because of their race, ethnicity or gender. What happened to being put in a position because they are the best person for that position?”

– Man, 64, U.S.

“Our politicians should have an education corresponding to their subject or field.” Woman, 72, Germany

Second, people want higher-caliber politicians. This includes a desire to see more technical expertise and traits such as morality, honesty, a “stronger backbone” or “more common sense.”

Sometimes, people simply want politicians with “no criminal records” – something mentioned explicitly by a South Korean man and echoed by respondents in the United States, India and Israel, among other places.

Responsiveness

“Make democracy promote more of the people’s voice. The people’s voice is the great strength for leadership.” Man, 27, Indonesia

Third, people want their politicians to hear them and respond to their needs and wishes, and for politicians to keep their promises. One man in the United Kingdom said, “If leaders would listen more to the local communities and do their jobs as members of Parliament, that would really help democracy in this country. It seems like once they’re elected, they just play lip service to the role.”

Special interests and corruption

Concerns about special interests and corruption are common in certain countries, including Mexico, the U.S. and Australia. One Mexican woman said, “Politicians should listen more to the Mexican people, not buy people off using money or groceries.” Others complained about politicians “pillaging” the country and enriching themselves by keeping tax money.

Calls for systemic reform

For some, the political system itself needs to change in order for democracy to work better. Changing the governmental structure is one of the top five topics coded in most countries surveyed – and it’s tied for the most mentioned issue in the U.S., along with politicians. These reforms include adjusting the balance of power between institutions, implementing term limits, and more.

Some also see the need to reform the electoral system in their country; others want more direct democracy through referenda or public forums. Judicial system reform is a priority for some, especially in Israel. (In Israel, the survey was conducted amid large-scale protests against a proposed law that would limit the power of the Supreme Court, but prior to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and the court’s rejection of the law in January .)

Government reform

The U.S. stands out as the only country surveyed where reforming the government is the top concern (tied with politicians). Americans mention very specific proposals such as giving the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico statehood, increasing the size of the House of the Representatives to allow one representative per 100,000 people, requiring a supermajority for all spending bills, eliminating the filibuster, and more.

Term limits for elected officials are a particularly popular reform in the U.S. Americans call for them to prevent “career politicians,” as in the case of one woman who said, “I think we need to limit the number of years politicians can serve. No one should be able to serve as a politician for 40+ years like Joe Biden. I don’t have anything against him. I just think that we need limits. We have too many people who have served for too long and have little or nothing to show for it.” Term limits for Supreme Court justices are also top of mind for many Americans when it comes to judicial system reform.

Electoral reform

“There are many parts of the UK where it’s obvious who will get elected. My vote doesn’t count where I live because the Conservative Party wins every time. Effectively it means that the majority is not represented by the government. With proportional representation, everybody’s vote would count.” Man, 62, UK

The electoral system is among the top targets for change in some countries. In Canada, Nigeria and the UK, changing how elections work is the second-most mentioned topic of the 17 substantive codes – and it falls in the top five in Australia, Japan, the Netherlands and the U.S.

Suggested changes vary across countries and include switching from first-past-the-post to a proportional voting system, having a fixed date for elections, lowering the voting age, returning to hand-counted paper ballots, voting directly for candidates rather than parties, and more.

Direct democracy

Calls for direct democracy are prevalent in several European countries – even ranking second in France and Germany. One French woman said, “There should be more referenda, they should ask the opinion of the people more, and it should be respected.”

In the broadest sense, people want a “direct voting system” or for “people to have the vote, not middlemen elected officials.” More narrowly, they also mention specific topics they would like referenda for, including rejoining the European Union in the UK; “abortion, retirement and euthanasia” in France; “all legislation which harms the justice system” in Israel; asylum policy, nitrogen policy and local affairs in the Netherlands; “when and where the country goes to war” in Australia; “gay marriage, marijuana legalization and bail reform” in the U.S.; “nuclear power, sexuality, NATO and the EU” in Sweden; and who should be prime minister in Japan. (The survey was conducted prior to Sweden joining NATO in March 2024.)

The judicial system

Of the systemic reforms suggested, few bring up changes to the judicial system in most countries. Only in Israel, where the topic ranked first at the time of the survey, does judicial system reform appear in the top 10 coded issues. Israelis approach this issue from vastly different perspectives. For instance, some want to curtail the Supreme Court’s influence over government decisions, while others want to preserve its independence, as in these two examples:

“Finish the legislation that will limit the enormous and generally unreasonable power of the Supreme Court in Israel!”

– Man, 64, Israel

“Do everything to keep the last word of the High Court on any social and moral issue.”

– Man, 31, Israel

Is the grass always greener?

Notably, some respondents propose the exact reform that those in another country would like to do away with.

For example, while some people in countries without mandatory voting think it could be useful to implement, there are respondents in Australia – where voting is compulsory – who want it to end. People without mandatory voting see it as a way to force everyone to have a say: “We have to get everyone out to vote. Everyone complains. Voting should be mandatory. Everyone has to vote and have a say,” said a Canadian woman. But the flip side one Australian expressed was, “Eliminate compulsory voting. The votes of people who do not care about a result voids the vote of somebody who does.”

The ideal number of parties in government is another topic that brings about opposing suggestions. In the Netherlands, which has a relatively large number of parties, altering the party system is the second-most mentioned way to improve democracy. Dutch respondents differed on terms of the maximum number of parties they want to see (“a three-party system,” “four or five parties at most,” “a maximum of seven parties,” etc.) but the tenor is broadly similar: Too many parties is leading to fragmentation, polarization and division. Elsewhere, however, some squarely attribute polarization to a system with too few parties. In the U.S., a man noted, “The most egregious problem is that a two-party system cannot ever hope to be representative of its people as the will of any group cannot be captured in a binary system: The result will be increased polarization between the Democratic and Republican parties.”

Even in countries with more than two parties, like Canada and the UK, there can be a sense that only two are viable. A Canadian man said, “We need to have a free election with more than two parties.”

For many respondents, fixing democracy begins with the people

Citizens – both their quality and their participation in politics – come up regularly as an area that requires improvement for democracy to work better. In most countries, the issue is in the top five. And in Israel, Sweden, Italy and Japan, citizens are the second-most mentioned topic of the 17 coded. (In this analysis, “citizens” refers to all inhabitants of each country, not just the legal residents.)

In general, respondents see three ways citizens can improve: being more informed, participating more and generally being better people.

Being more informed

“More awareness and more information. We have highly separated classes. There are generations who have never read a newspaper. One cannot be fully democratic if one is not aware.” Man, 86, Italy

First, citizens being more informed is seen as crucial. Respondents argue that informed citizens are able to vote more responsibly and avoid being misled by surface-level political quips or misinformation.

In the Netherlands, for example, where the survey predated the electoral success of Geert Wilders’ right-wing populist Party for Freedom (PVV), one woman noted that citizens need “education, and openness, maybe. There are a lot of people who vote Geert Wilders because of his one-liners, and they don’t think beyond those. They haven’t learned to think beyond what’s right in front of them.” (For more information on how we classify populist parties, refer to Appendix E .)

Participating more

“Each and every one of us must go to the polls and make our own decisions.” Woman, 76, Japan

Second, some respondents want people in their country to be more involved in politics – whether that be turning out to vote, protesting at key moments or just caring more about politics or other issues. They hold the notion that if people participate, they will be less apathetic and less likely to complain, and their voices will be represented more fully. One woman in Sweden noted, “I would like to see more involvement from different groups of people: younger people, people with different backgrounds, people from minority groups.”

Being better people

“People should walk around rationally, respecting each other, dialoguing and respecting people’s cultures.” Woman, 29, Brazil

Third, the character of citizens comes up regularly – respondents’ requests for their countrymen range from “care more about others” to “love God and neighbor completely” to asking that they be “better critical thinkers,” among myriad other things. Still, some calls for improved citizen behavior contradict each other, as in the case of two Australian women who differ over how citizens should think about assimilation:

“We need to be more caring and thoughtful about people who come to the country. We need to be more tolerant and absorb them in our community.”

– Woman, 75, Australia

“We need to stop worrying that we are going to offend other nationalities and their traditions. We should be able to say ‘Merry Christmas’ instead of ‘happy holidays,’ and Christmas celebrations should be held in schools without worrying about offending others in our so-called ‘democratic society.’”

– Woman, 70, Australia

It’s difficult to please everyone

One challenge is that people in the same country may offer the exact opposite solutions. For example, in the UK, some people want politicians to make more money; others, less. In the U.S., while changes to the electoral system rank as one of the public’s top solutions for fixing democracy, some want to make it significantly easier to vote by methods like automatically registering citizens or making it easier to vote by mail. Others want to end these practices or even eliminate touch-screen voting machines.

Economic reform and basic needs

People in several countries, mostly in the middle-income nations surveyed (Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa) stand out for the emphasis they place on economic reform as a means to improve democracy. In India and South Africa, for example, the issue ranks first among the 17 substantive topics coded; in Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya, it ranks second. These calls include a focus on creating jobs , curbing inflation , changing government spending priorities and more.

“When education, roads, hospitals and adequate water are made available, then I can say democracy will improve.” Man, 30, Nigeria

Sometimes, people draw a causal link between the economy and democracy, suggesting that improvements to the former would improve the latter. For example, one woman in Indonesia said, “Improve the economic conditions to ensure democracy goes well.” People also insinuated that having basic needs met is a precursor to their democracy functioning. One South African man noted that democracy in his country would work better if the government “created more employment for the youth, fixed the roads and gave us water. They must also fix the electricity problem.” A man in India said, “There’s a need for development in democracy.”

Indeed, specific policies and legislation – particularly improvements to infrastructure like roads, hospitals, water, electricity and schools – are the second-most mentioned topic in Brazil, India, Nigeria and South Africa. Some respondents offer laundry lists of policies that need attention, such as one Brazilian woman who called for “improving health care, controlling drug use, more security for the population, and improving the situation of people on the streets.”

Priority differences in high- and middle-income countries

Beyond economic reform , other changes to living conditions also receive more emphasis in some middle-income countries surveyed:

• In South Africa and Nigeria, both middle-income countries, mentions of economic reform tend to reference jobs . In other, high-income countries, calls for economic change generally refer to other economic issues like inflation and government spending priorities.
• When bringing up the issue of money in politics, respondents in middle-income countries generally cite corruption more than those in high-income countries. Those in high-income countries tend to bring up special interests more broadly.
• People in middle-income countries also focus more on issues related to public safety – including reducing crime and supporting law enforcement – than those in high-income countries.
• For their part, people in the 16 high-income countries surveyed tend to focus more on political party reform, direct democracy, government reform and media reform than those in the eight middle-income nations.

No changes and no solutions – or at least no democratic ones

“Democracy is fine because you have the freedom to express yourself without being persecuted, especially in politics.” Man, 26, Argentina

People sometimes say there are no changes that can make democracy in their country work better. These responses include broadly positive views of the status quo such as, “I am very happy to live in a country with democracy.” An Indian man responded simply, “Everything is going well in India.” Some respondents even compare their system favorably to others, as one Australian man said: “I think it currently works pretty well, far better than, say, the U.S. or UK, Poland or Israel.”

“Our current system is broken and I’m not sure what, if anything, can fix it at this point.” Woman, 41, U.S

But some are more pessimistic. They have the sense that “no matter what I do, nothing will change.” A Brazilian man said, “It is difficult to make it better. Brazil is too complicated.”

And some see no better options. In Hungary – where “no changes” was the second-most cited topic of the 17 coded – one man referenced Winston Churchill’s quote about democracy, saying, “Democracy is the worst form of government, not counting all the others that man has tried from time to time.”

In many countries, a sizable share offer no response at all – saying that they do not know or refusing to answer. This includes around a third or more of those in Indonesia, Japan and the U.S. In most countries, those who did not answer the question tended to have lower levels of formal education than those who offered a substantive solution. And in some places – including the U.S. – they were also more likely to be women than men.

Few call for ending democracy altogether

Despite considerable discontent with democracy , few people suggest changing to a non-democratic system. Those who do call for a new system offer options like a military junta, a theocracy or an autocracy as possible new systems.

Related: Who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government?

Road map for this research project

One other way to think about what people believe will help improve their democracy is to focus on three themes: basic needs that can be addressed, improvements to the system and complete overhauls of the system. We explore these themes in our interactive data essay and quote sorter: “How People in 24 Countries Think Democracy Can Improve.”

You can also explore people’s responses in their own words, with the option to filter by country and code by navigating over to the quote sorter .

In the chapters that follow, we discuss 15 of our coded themes in detail. We analyze how people spoke about them, as well as how responses varied across and within countries. We chose to emphasize the relative frequency, or rank order , in which people mentioned these different topics. For more about this choice, as well as details about our coding procedure and methodology , refer to Appendix A .

Explore the chapters of this report:

Why this report focuses on topic rank order in addition to percentages

There is some variation in whether and how people responded to our open-ended question. In each country surveyed, some respondents said that they did not understand the question, did not know how to answer or did not want to answer. This share of adults ranged from 4% in Spain to 47% in the U.S.

These differences help explain why the share giving a particular answer in certain publics may appear much lower than others, even if the topic is the top mentioned suggestion for improving democracy. To give a specific example, 10% in Poland mention politicians while 18% say the same in South Africa, but the topic is ranked second in Poland and third in South Africa. Given this, researchers have chosen to highlight not only the share of the public who mention a given topic but also its relative ranking among the topics coded, both in the text and in graphics.

Facts are more important than ever

In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data. Please support our research with a financial contribution.

Report Materials

Table of contents, freedom, elections, voice: how people in australia and the uk define democracy, global public opinion in an era of democratic anxiety, most people in advanced economies think their own government respects personal freedoms, more people globally see racial, ethnic discrimination as a serious problem in the u.s. than in their own society, citizens in advanced economies want significant changes to their political systems, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Israel raids Gaza hospitals, as poll shows Americans disapprove of Israeli war conduct

Israeli forces are carrying out “an intelligence-based operation” at al-Amal Hospital in Khan Younis, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday, without giving further details. The IDF said forces are also continuing their raid on al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, which began over a week ago. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin urged Israel to abandon military plans for a ground offensive in Rafah, the southern Gaza city where more than 1 million Palestinians have crowded to escape fighting elsewhere in the enclave.

• Israel strikes Lebanese paramedic center, news agency says; Hezbollah hits northern Israel
• Most Americans oppose Israel’s war in Gaza, poll finds
• Israeli forces expand Gaza hospital raids

Here's what to know:

Here's what to know, live coverage contributors 13.

4:59 p.m. EDT Bullet Key update 4:59 p.m. EDT

3:25 p.m. EDT 3:25 p.m. EDT

1:00 p.m. EDT Bullet Key update 1:00 p.m. EDT

12:05 p.m. EDT Bullet Key update 12:05 p.m. EDT

12:00 p.m. EDT 12:00 p.m. EDT

• Republicans hug Netanyahu tighter as Democratic tensions with Israel war strategy boil March 20, 2024 Republicans hug Netanyahu tighter as Democratic tensions with Israel war strategy boil March 20, 2024
• Blinken begins new round of Gaza talks in Saudi Arabia March 20, 2024 Blinken begins new round of Gaza talks in Saudi Arabia March 20, 2024
• Blinken to visit Israel amid tensions over plan to invade Rafah March 20, 2024 Blinken to visit Israel amid tensions over plan to invade Rafah March 20, 2024

8:28 a.m. EDT 8:28 a.m. EDT

5:35 a.m. EDT 5:35 a.m. EDT

1:41 a.m. EDT Bullet Key update 1:41 a.m. EDT

1:40 a.m. EDT Bullet Key update 1:40 a.m. EDT

Israel-Gaza war

Israel-Gaza war: Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to make a quick stop in Israel as tensions are rising between the United States and Israel over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to invade Rafah . The Israeli military said Wednesday that it was continuing its raid on al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, where people said they were trapped in dire conditions.

Middle East conflict: Tensions in the region continue to rise. As Israeli troops aim to take control of the Gaza-Egypt border crossing, officials in Cairo warn that the move would undermine the 1979 peace treaty. Meanwhile, there’s a diplomatic scramble to avert full-scale war between Israel and Lebanon .

U.S. involvement: U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria killed dozens of Iranian-linked militants , according to Iraqi officials. The strikes were the first round of retaliatory action by the Biden administration for an attack in Jordan that killed three U.S. service members .