Representative democracy, since a large civilazation would make it impossible to control a direct democracy. Choosing representatives and trusting that they will make the correct decision is much easier than trying to listen to everyone's oppinion. Especially when there are 900 million + people.
Empirically speaking, the United Nations is not a democracy. A democracy must have two components: Demos (referring to a large sampling of people) and Kratos (referring to an authority or rulership) Since the United Nations has no effective sovereignty (kratos), it cannot be a democracy, but merely a group of people who talk and vote on issues. Hungary holds to this opinion.
A people-centered government is called a democracy. The most people-centered government is called a direct democracy, where people decide on policy measures directly. This works best in smaller situations. Modern democracies are typically an indirect democracy, or representative democracy, where elected officials represent a group of people. This is more practical when a citizenry has a large population.
India USA Canada UK and many more Virtually all modern Democracies are really representative republican democracies. Modern society is too complex and large to allow for direct democracy on any size about a city-state (that is, a few 10s of thousands of people, and even that's pushing it - a few thousand is generally the maximum effective direct democracy size).
It is impractical for all members of large societies to vote on all matters.
Athenian democracy was all adult male citizens meeting in assembly each fortnight and discussed and voted on the running of the state. It is not important today other than as interesting history, as democracies today are representative democracies - that is citizens elect representatives to he assembly, who vote on decisions. This present system gives power to the representative politicians who often have different views and are held accountable at elections after several years. The Athenian direct democracy model sounds attractive but most countries are too large for people to assemble regularly, so we have to have representatives to do this for us. The question is 'would you trust a politician?'
Americans and the US are very patriotic and large advocates of democracy. The US has a long history of trying to spread democracy around the world because of its strong favoritism of democracy, as the US was the first modern democracy in the world. Especially in the past, the US wanted nothing to do with dictatorships or non-democratic nations. That is why there was the Cold War, for starters.
In a direct democracy, every single group member has an equal say and votes on every issue. It is impractical for large groups, like countries, because it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for each member to vote on every issue. Countries usually have representative democracies in which the citizens elect representatives who vote on the issues, ideally with the best interests of the citizens in mind.
Americans and the US are very patriotic and large advocates of democracy. The US has a long history of trying to spread democracy around the world because of its strong favoritism of democracy, as the US was the first modern democracy in the world. Especially in the past, the US wanted nothing to do with dictatorships or non-democratic nations. That is why there was the Cold War, for starters.
you have a right to vote and people have a large say in making big choices
democracy
Their territory was too large to govern by democracy
A democracy is considered "consolidated" when, as scholar Juan Linz suggests, it is the only game in town. What this means is that a large majority of the countries' population accepts the democratic institutions as legitimate and thus they exist relatively unchallenged. However, this also means that there must be a strong democratic culture in place as well. This means that, in general, the population believes in the basic tenets of democracy and participates in various aspects of civil society.