Democracy

Every US President has opposed direct democracy because it would allow the unwashed masses to directly control policy as opposed to restricting policy votes and decisions to those people educated enough to make them. Additionally, in a direct democracy, it is likely the President would be out of a job.

As it currently stands, the US government is an indirect democracy, where citizens vote for politicians who will themselves vote on policy. A direct democracy circumvents the politicians' vote.

There are a list of requirement of democracy is a system of government. The list of requirements is: power through elections, election that are free, civil rights, political rights and government transparency.

by compromise

These can include the political parties. People are able to vote on the people that they want in office. Interest groups also help to keep things honest.

When the Constitution and Declaration of Independence was created, the two groups who had limited rights were women and slaves. The United States was still in a transitional phase before becoming liberated and equal rights were recognized for all citizens.

Yes. Generally speaking, as Expert Charlie N. notes, these ideals are not completely followed through on in democracies. However, these things remain the ideal. The reason that frequent elections (e.g. at least once every six years) are necessary is in order to hold public officials accountable to the people. Individuals who have their positions with lifetime tenures have no reason to maintain loyalty to the public. Legal equality is necessary in order for every person to be able to defend their interests to the same degree. A group of people that does not have the right to vote or to defend themselves politically has often been a political target by those groups who do have the rights to vote and politically advocate.

through compromise.

It didn't. Libya is not a democracy.

The point of democracy is that the people are in charge

A democratic structure in a society will ensure that all citizens of that society have a role and say in the government. When a democratic structure is in place, all citizens of a society should have equal input in the way a country is run and who the elected leaders are. This way, the country and it's government are reflective of the society as a whole.

Modern democracies developed primarily during the late 1700's and early 1800's, though many continue to emerge to this day (such as Egypt). The prior however were mainly due to the dissatisfaction of the populace in regards to the reigning monarchies of Europe. These revolutionaries argued that the European Monarchs stripped the common people of the most basic rights of man: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the people rebelled, almost always violently, and established new democracies that allowed everyone (at this time however mainly land-owning white men) the chance to have a say in their government. Some of these new democracies thrived, such as the United States, while others fell under the reign of dictators, such as France.

I think they should adopt a conscience that tells them it is a crime against humanity to colonize.

direct

In a strict democracy, every individual has an equal vote in decision making such as elections and voting on policies and laws. A republic is similar to a democracy in that a majority vote wins, however, in a republic, representatives are the ones who vote, not the public. The US is a republic, not a democracy. Elected officials in congress "represent" their constituents when voting on matters. Arguably, this is a more practical form of democracy in that individuals cannot be thoroughly knowledgeable on all matters that need to be voted on thus the results should be more sound. Additionally, a national vote on every matter would be impractical. The downside is that if representatives don't vote in support of their constituents, the decisions may not reflect the wishes of the populous.

The Roman government (in its entire history from founding to fall) was a strange mix of a democracy and a republic. An interesting fact ist that the people of Rome took many of their ideas of government from the Ancient Greeks.

The Roman state was described as the republic (respublica) and its consuls, or chief magistrates, continued to be appointed even after the establishment of one-man rule under the empire, but in its pure form it lasted only until the beginning of the first century B.C.

At the creation of the republic, supreme power probably resided with a popular assembly, but early on the Senate became very influential, and the traditional formula, which survived for centuries, was S.P.Q.R. - Senatus Populusque Romanus - the Roman Senate and People acting together.

Since the Ancient Romans did not want one man to make all of the laws, they decided to balance the power of the government between three branches, there was first the executive branch, then the legislative branch, and finally the judicial branch.

No but it used to be. As of now it is under a Prime Minister and a President. And is also democracy.

Countries that are not democracies may be: Theocracy - that is, the rulers are guided only by their particular religious belief, or else the ruler is the head of a specific religion, as in the case of Vatican City. In an autocracy, the government is determined by a single, self-appointed ruler who holds all the political power. An oligarchy - where the country's political power is wielded by just a few, usually a small elite segment of society such as royalty or the military.

It depends on the democracy, because there are a number of distinct political organizations and orderings, but the most common branches of a democracy are: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Simplistically, the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and judicial branch interprets the proper application of the laws.

They were denied rights in their own country

Modern Israel is a democracy.

Yes, they have an elected government.

A Herrenvolk democracy is a political system in which citizen rights are only granted to the dominant group in a society; the US Jim Crow South and Apartheid South Africa are generally cited as the most illustrative cases. The term was coined by van den Berghe 1967.

A few factors are transparency,accountability,checks and balances,bipartisanship,public participation and good voter turnout by all classes. there is a lot more.