"...that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not vanish from this earth."
-- President Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg Address, 1863

Speaking at the dedication of a national cemetery at Gettysburg in the midst of a great civil war fought to preserve the United States as a country, President Lincoln gave us in his ringing conclusion perhaps the best-known definition of democracy in American history. By "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," he meant, the essentials of democratic government he so well described are applicable to all nations that aspire to a democratic society.

Democracy is hard, perhaps the most complex and difficult of all forms of government. It is filled with tensions and contradictions, and requires that its members labor diligently to make it work. Democracy is not designed for efficiency, but for accountability; a democratic government may not be able to act as quickly as a dictatorship, but once committed to a course of action it can draw upon deep wellsprings of popular support. Democracy, certainly in its American form, is never a finished product, but is always evolving. The outer forms of government in the United States have altered little in two centuries, but once we look past the surface we discover great changes. Yet, most Americans believe -- and rightly so -- that the basic principles underlying their government derive directly from notions first enunciated by the framers of the Constitution in 1787.

In these papers, we have tried to explicate what some of those principles are, indicating a little of their historical development and explaining why they are important to the workings of government in the United States in particular as well as democracy in general. Because any democracy is an evolving system, the papers also indicate some shortcomings of the U.S. governmental system, and how the nation has tried to address those problems. No one claims that the American model, as successful as it has been for the United States, is the model that all democracies should follow. Each nation must fashion a government out of its own culture and history. But these essays do identify fundamental principles that, in one form or another, must be present in all democracies. The exact manner in which laws are made, for example, can vary widely, but no matter what the forms, they must obey the root principle that the citizenry has to be involved in the process and feel ownership of those laws.

What are these root principles? We have identified 11 that we believe are key to understanding how democracy has evolved and how it operates in the United States.

Constitutionalism: Law-making must take place within certain parameters; there must be approved methods for laws to be made and to be changed, and certain areas -- namely the rights of individuals -- must be off limits to the whims of majority rule. A constitution is a law, but at the same time it is much more than that. It is the organic document of a government, laying out the powers of the different branches as well as the limits on governmental authority. A key feature of constitutionalism is that this basic framework cannot easily be changed because of the wishes of a transient majority. It requires the consent of the governed expressed in a clear and unambiguous manner. In the United States, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1787. The framers made the amendment process difficult but not impossible. Most of the amendments have extended democracy by enlarging individual rights and wiping away differences based on race or gender. None of these amendments were lightly undertaken, and when adopted, all had the support of a great majority of the people.

Democratic Elections: No matter how well designed a government is, it cannot be considered democratic unless the officials who head that government are freely elected by the citizens in a manner perceived to be open and fair to all. The mechanism of an election may vary, but the essentials are the same for all democratic societies: access of all qualified citizens to the ballot, protection of the individual against undue influence in the casting of the ballot, and an open and honest counting of the votes. Because large-scale balloting is always subject to errors and fraud, care must be taken to avoid these as much as possible, so that if there is a problem or a close election -- as happened in the 2000 presidential election in the United States -- the people will understand that despite the difficulty, the results can still be accepted as binding upon them.

Federalism, State and Local Governments: The United States is unique in its federal system of government, in which power and authority are shared and exercised by national, state, and local governments. But if the model is not suited to other nations, there are still lessons to be learned. The further government is from the people, the less effective it is and the less it is trusted. By having local and state governments, Americans can see some of their elected officials up close. They can tie policies and programs directly to the men and women who enacted them and who implement them. In addition, decentralization of authority makes it all that much harder to effect an illegitimate takeover of the government. The principle that democracies ought to decentralize power and responsibility may not matter much in a small and relatively homogeneous country, but it can be an important safeguard in large and heterogeneous nations.

Creation of law: History records that formal laws have been made by mankind for five millennia, but the methods different societies have used to make the rules under which they will live have varied enormously, from edicts by god-kings to majority vote at village meetings. In the United States, law is made at many levels, from local town councils, on up through state legislatures, to the U.S. Congress. But at all these levels, there is a large input from the citizenry, either directly or indirectly. Law-making bodies recognize that they are responsible to their constituents, and if they do not legislate in the people's best interests, they will face defeat at the next election. The key to democratic law-making is not the mechanism or even the forum in which it takes place, but the sense of accountability to the citizenry and the need to recognize the wishes of the people.

An independent judiciary: Alexander Hamilton remarked in The Federalist in 1788-89 that the courts, being without the powers of either sword or purse, would be "the least dangerous branch" of the government. Yet courts can be very powerful in a democracy, and in many ways are the operating arm through which constitutional constraints are interpreted and enforced. In the United States, the courts may declare acts of Congress and of state legislatures invalid because they conflict with the Constitution, and may enjoin presidential actions on similar grounds. The greatest defender of individual rights in the United States has been the court system; this is made possible because most judges have life tenure and can focus on legal issues without the distraction of politics. While not all constitutional courts are the same, there must be a body that has the authority to determine what the Constitution says, and when different branches of government have exceeded their powers.

Powers of the presidency: All modern societies must have a chief executive able to carry out the responsibilities of government, from the simple administration of a program to directing the armed forces to defending the nation in wartime. But a fine line must be drawn between giving the executive sufficient powers to do the job and, at the same time, limiting that authority to prevent a dictatorship. In the United States, the Constitution has drawn clear lines around the powers of the president, and while the office is one of the strongest in the world, its strength derives from consent of the governed and the ability of the occupant of the White House to work well with the other branches of government. Here again, the actual organization of the chief executive's office is not the issue, but rather the constraints imposed upon that office by such principles as "separation of powers." In a democracy, a president must rule through his or her political skills, establishing a framework of cooperation with the legislature and above all with the people. At the same time, the citizenry must feel secure that constitutional constraints ensure that the president or prime minister is always the servant, and not the master, of the people.

Role of a free media: Closely tied to the public's right to know are a free media -- newspapers, radio and television networks -- that can investigate the workings of government and report on them without fear of prosecution. English common law made any criticism of the king (and by extension the entire government) a crime known as seditious libel. The United States eventually did away with this crime, and in its place created a theory of the press that has served democracy well. In a complex state, the individual citizen may not be able to leave work to go watch trials, sit in on legislative debates, or investigate how a government program works. But the press is the surrogate of the citizen, reporting back through print and broadcast media what it has found so that the citizenry can act on that knowledge. In a democracy, the people rely on the press to ferret out corruption, to expose the maladministration of justice or the inefficient and ineffective workings of a government body. No country can be free without a free press, and one sign of any dictatorship is the silencing of the media.

Role of interest groups: In the 18th century, and in fact well into the 19th, law-making represented primarily a dialogue between the voters and their elected representatives in Congress or in state and local governments. Because the population was smaller, governmental programs more limited, and communications simpler, there was no need for citizens to resort to mediating organizations for assistance in making their views known. But, in the 20th century, society grew more complex, and the role of government expanded. Now there are many issues that voters need to speak about, and in order to make their voices heard on specific matters, citizens create lobby groups, groups advocating public and private interests, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) devoted to single issues. There has been much internal criticism of this aspect of American democracy, and some people claim that those interests with access to large sums of money can make their voices better heard than those with fewer resources. There is a certain truth to that criticism, but the fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of these groups who help to educate the public and lawmakers about particular matters, and in doing so they help many individual citizens of ordinary means get their views known to their lawmakers in a complex age. With the age of the Internet upon us, the number of voices will increase even more, and these NGOs will help to refine and focus citizen interest in an effective manner.

Public's right to know: Before this century, if people wanted to know how their government was running, generally all they had to do was go down to the town hall or the agora and listen to the debates and discussions. But today we deal with large, complex bureaucracies, statutes and regulations that often run hundreds of pages, and a legislative process that, even while accountable to the people, may still be too murky for most to understand what is happening. In a democracy, government should, as much as possible, be transparent -- that is, its deliberations and decisions should be open to public scrutiny. Clearly, not all government actions should be public, but the citizenry have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent, whether the administration of justice is efficient and effective, and whether their elected representatives are acting responsibly. How this information is made available will vary from government to government, but no democratic government can operate in total secrecy.

Protecting minority rights: If by "democracy" we mean rule by the majority, then one of the great problems in a democracy is how minorities are treated. By "minorities" we do not mean people who voted against the winning party, but rather those who are indelibly different from the majority by reasons of race, religion, or ethnicity. In the United States, the great problem has been that of race; it took a bloody civil war to free black slaves, and then another century before people of color could count on free exercise of their constitutional rights. The problem of racial equality is one that the United States is still wrestling with today. But this is part of the evolutionary nature of democracy, the drive to become more inclusive and to grant to those who are different from the majority not only protection against persecution but the opportunity to participate as full and equal citizens. Examples of nations treating their minorities in a bloody and horrible manner are numerous, and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews is only the most vivid illustration. But no society can aspire to call itself democratic if it systematically excludes specific groups from the full protection of the laws.

Civilian control of the military: In ancient times, the primary responsibility of a leader was to lead society's military forces either to defend the nation or to conquer others. All too often, the popularity of a successful general led him to seek control of the government through force; he who controlled the military could easily sweep all others aside. In modern times we have seen, far too many times to count, a colonel or general using the power of the army in a coup to overthrow the civilian government. In a democracy, the military must not only be under the actual control of civilian authorities, but it must have a culture that emphasizes the role of soldiers as the servants and not the rulers of society. This is easier to accomplish when there is a citizen army, whose officers come from all sectors of society and after a term of service, return to civilian life. But the principle remains the same: The military must always be subordinate; its job is to protect democracy and not rule.

From these essays we can derive certain overarching themes. First, and most important, is that in a democracy the ultimate source of all authority is the people. The Constitution of the United States announces this boldly in its first words: "We, the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution." All powers in government must come from the people, and must be accepted by them as legitimate. This validation takes place through a variety of means, including the processes of making law as well as free and fair elections.

A second general principle is that there must be a division of powers so that no one part of the government can become so strong as to subvert the will of the people. Although the president is always seen as the most powerful office in American government, the Constitution limits those powers and requires the chief executive to work in harmony with the other branches as well as with the constituency of voters. Although civilian control of the military would seem to place great power in the president's hands, the culture underlying the military in a democratic society works against the misuse of that force. Courts also exist to serve as limitations not only on the executive but on the legislative branch as well. In a democracy, government must be in a balance, and all the different parts must appreciate the wisdom and necessity of that balance.

Third, the rights of individuals and of minorities must be respected, and the majority may not use its power to deprive any person of basic liberties. In a democracy this may often be difficult, especially if there is a diverse population holding diverse views on critical subjects. But once a government deprives one group of rights, then the rights of all the people are in jeopardy.

These themes run throughout the Democracy Papers, and each topic supports all of these overarching principles. The will of the people is ensured through free and fair elections, through the making of law, through a free press examining the workings of government, and through a right to know what the government is doing. It expresses itself through interest groups, even if a bit unevenly. In the United States, the division of powers is mandated by the Constitution, an organic document held in near reverence by the American people. It is also seen in limitations imposed upon the government, by civilian control of the military, and by a federal system. And rights of minorities are ensured through many means, the most important of which is an independent judiciary.

But can these principles be translated into other cultures? There is no simple answer, because the success of any governmental system depends on so many intertwined features. During the colonial period in American history, the imperial government in London could not exert close control of its distant American colonies, and so power and authority devolved onto the local legislatures. This in turn led to a federal system encapsulated in a Constitution that reflects the peculiar historical situation of the people of the United States. The perceived excesses of the British king led to limits on executive authority, while the experience of a citizen militia laid the basis for civilian control of the military.

Individual rights proved harder, but as democracy has evolved in the United States, the rights of the people have expanded from those of white, property-owning men to include men and women of all races, colors, and creeds. Diversity, originally seen as a problem for government, became one of the great strengths of democracy. With so many different peoples, religions and cultures in large democratic nations, any effort to impose one uniform manner of life would have proven disastrous. Instead of fighting diversity, the American people made it a cornerstone of their democratic faith.

Other nations as they experiment with democracy -- and it is always an experiment -- will need to examine how the attributes described in these papers can best be created and sustained in their own culture. There is no one way; to paraphrase the poet Walt Whitman, democracy is a multitude, often contradicting itself. But if we keep our eye on the basic, immutable principles -- that ultimate authority resides in the people, that governmental powers must be limited, and that individual rights must be protected-then there can be many ways in which to achieve those goals.

________________________________________ About the Author:
Series Editor Melvin I. Urofsky, professor of history and public policy at Virginia Commonwealth University, is the author or editor of more than 40 books. His most recent works are The Warren Court (2001), and with Paul Finkelman, A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States (2nd ed., 2001).

The Benchmark of Elections
Elections are the central institution of democratic representative governments. Why? Because, in a democracy, the authority of the government derives solely from the consent of the governed. The principal mechanism for translating that consent into governmental authority is the holding of free and fair elections.

All modern democracies hold elections, but not all elections are democratic. Right-wing dictatorships, Marxist regimes, and single-party governments also stage elections to give their rule the aura of legitimacy. In such elections, there may be only one candidate or a list of candidates, with no alternative choices. Such elections may offer several candidates for each office, but ensure through intimidation or rigging that only the government-approved candidate is chosen. Other elections may offer genuine choices--but only within the incumbent party. These are not democratic elections.

What Are Democratic Elections?
Jeane Kirkpatrick, scholar and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has offered this definition: "Democratic elections are not merely symbolic....They are competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives."

What do Kirkpatrick's criteria mean? Democratic elections are competitive. Opposition parties and candidates must enjoy the freedom of speech, assembly, and movement necessary to voice their criticisms of the government openly and to bring alternative policies and candidates to the voters. Simply permitting the opposition access to the ballot is not enough. Elections in which the opposition is barred from the airwaves, has its rallies harassed or its newspapers censored, are not democratic. The party in power may enjoy the advantages of incumbency, but the rules and conduct of the election contest must be fair.

Democratic elections are periodic. Democracies do not elect dictators or presidents-for-life. Elected officials are accountable to the people, and they must return to the voters at prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office. This means that officials in a democracy must accept the risk of being voted out of office. The one exception is judges who, to insulate them against popular pressure and help ensure their impartiality, may be appointed for life and removed only for serious improprieties.

Democratic elections are inclusive. The definition of citizen and voter must be large enough to include a large proportion of the adult population. A government chosen by a small, exclusive group is not a democracy--no matter how democratic its internal workings may appear. One of the great dramas of democracy throughout history has been the struggle of excluded groups--whether racial, ethnic, or religious minorities, or women--to win full citizenship, and with it the right to vote and hold office. In the United States, for example, only white male property holders enjoyed the right to elect and be elected when the Constitution was signed in 1787. The property qualification disappeared by the early 19th century, and women won the right to vote in 1920. Black Americans, however, did not enjoy full voting rights in the southern United States until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And finally, in 1971, younger citizens were given the right to vote when the United States lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.

Democratic elections are definitive. They determine the leadership of the government. Subject to the laws and constitution of the country, popularly elected representatives hold the reins of power. They are not simply figureheads or symbolic leaders.

Finally, democratic elections are not limited to selecting candidates. Voters can also be asked to decide policy issues directly through referendums and initiatives that are placed on the ballot. In the United States, for example, state legislatures can decide to "refer," or place, an issue directly before the voters. In the case of an initiative, citizens themselves can gather a prescribed number of signatures (usually a percentage of the number of registered voters in that state) and require that an issue be placed on the next ballot--even over the objections of the state legislature or governor. In a state such as California, voters confront dozens of legislative initiatives each time they vote--on issues ranging from environmental pollution to automobile insurance costs.

Democratic Ethics and the Loyal Opposition
Democracies thrive on openness and accountability, with one very important exception: the act of voting itself. To cast a free ballot and minimize the opportunity for intimidation, voters in a democracy must be permitted to cast their ballots in secret. At the same time, the protection of the ballot box and tallying of vote totals must be conducted as openly as possible, so that citizens are confident that the results are accurate and that the government does, indeed, rest upon their "consent."

One of the most difficult concepts for some to accept, especially in nations where the transition of power has historically taken place at the point of a gun, is that of the "loyal opposition." This idea is a vital one, however. It means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors don't necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to play. Moreover, the ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate.

When the election is over, the losers accept the judgment of the voters. If the incumbent party loses, it turns over power peacefully. No matter who wins, both sides agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the society. The losers, now in the political opposition, know that they will not lose their lives or go to jail. On the contrary, the opposition, whether it consists of one party or many, can continue to participate in public life with the knowledge that its role is essential in any democracy worthy of the name. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.

As the next election comes around, opposition parties will again have the opportunity to compete for power. In addition, a pluralistic society, one in which the reach of government is limited, tends to offer election losers alternatives for public service outside government. Those defeated at the polls may choose to continue as a formal opposition party, but they may also decide to participate in the wider political process and debate through writing, teaching, or joining one of many private organizations concerned with public policy issues. Democratic elections, after all, are not a fight for survival but a competition to serve.

Inalienable Rights

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. In these memorable words of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set forth a fundamental principle upon which democratic government is founded. Governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms enumerated by Jefferson; governments are created to protect those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his or her existence.

In their formulation by the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, inalienable rights are God-given natural rights. These rights are not destroyed when civil society is created, and neither society nor government can remove or "alienate" them.

Inalienable rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly, and the right to equal protection before the law. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the rights that citizens enjoy in a democracy--democratic societies also assert such civil rights as the right to a fair trial--but it does constitute the core rights that any democratic government must uphold. Since they exist independently of government, these rights cannot be legislated away, nor are they subject to the momentary whim of an electoral majority. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, does not give freedom of religion or of the press to the people; it prohibits the Congress from passing any law interfering with freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. A historian, Leonard Levy, has said, "Individuals may be free when their government is not."

The detailed formulation of laws and procedures concerning these basic human rights will necessarily vary from society to society, but every democracy is charged with the task of building the constitutional, legal, and social structures that will ensure their protection.

Speech
Freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of any democracy. To debate and vote, to assemble and protest, to worship, to ensure justice for all--these all rely upon the unrestricted flow of speech and information. Canadian Patrick Wilson, creator of the television series The Struggle for Democracy, observes: "Democracy is communication: people talking to one another about their common problems and forging a common destiny. Before people can govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves."

Citizens of a democracy live with the conviction that through the open exchange of ideas and opinions, truth will eventually win out over falsehood, the values of others will be better understood, areas of compromise more clearly defined, and the path of progress opened. The greater the volume of such exchanges, the better. American essayist E.B. White put it this way: "The press in our free country is reliable and useful not because of its good character but because of its great diversity. As long as there are many owners, each pursuing his own brand of truth, we the people have the opportunity to arrive at the truth and dwell in the light....There is safety in numbers."

In contrast to authoritarian states, democratic governments do not control, dictate, or judge the content of written and verbal speech. Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable citizenry whose access to the broadest possible range of information enables them to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society. Ignorance breeds apathy. Democracy thrives upon the energy of citizens who are sustained by the unimpeded flow of ideas, data, opinions, and speculation.

But what should the government do in cases where the news media or other organizations abuse freedom of speech with information that, in the opinion of the majority, is false, repugnant, irresponsible, or simply in bad taste? The answer, by and large, is nothing. It is simply not the business of government to judge such matters. In general, the cure for free speech is more free speech. It may seem a paradox, but in the name of free speech, a democracy must sometimes defend the rights of individuals and groups who themselves advocate such non- democratic policies as repressing free speech. Citizens in a democratic society defend this right out of the conviction that, in the end, open debate will lead to greater truth and wiser public actions than if speech and dissent are stifled.

Furthermore, the advocate of free speech argues, the suppression of speech that I find offensive today is potentially a threat to my exercise of free speech tomorrow--which perhaps you or someone else might find offensive. One of the classic defenses of this view is that of English philosopher John Stuart Mill, who argued in his 1859 essay "On Liberty" that all people are harmed when speech is repressed. "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth," Mill wrote, "if wrong, they lose...the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error."

The corollary to freedom of speech is the right of the people to assemble and peacefully demand that the government hear their grievances. Without this right to gather and be heard, freedom of speech would be devalued. For this reason, freedom of speech is considered closely linked to, if not inseparable from, the right to gather, protest, and demand change. Democratic governments can legitimately regulate the time and place of political rallies and marches to maintain the peace, but they cannot use that authority to suppress protest or to prevent dissident groups from making their voices heard.

Freedom and Faith
Freedom of religion, or more broadly freedom of conscience, means that no person should be required to profess any religion or other belief against his or her desires. Additionally, no one should be punished or penalized in any way because he or she chooses one religion over another or, indeed, opts for no religion at all. The democratic state recognizes that a person's religious faith is a profoundly personal matter.

In a related sense, freedom of religion means that no one can be compelled by government to recognize an official church or faith. Children cannot be compelled to go to a particular religious school, and no one can be required to attend religious services, to pray, or to participate in religious activities against his or her will. By reason of long history or tradition, many democratic nations have officially established churches or religions that receive state support. This fact, however, does not relieve the government of the responsibility for protecting the freedom of individuals whose beliefs differ from that of the officially sanctioned religion.

Citizenship: Rights and Responsibilities
Democracies rest upon the principle that government exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the government. In other words, the people are citizens of the democratic state, not its subjects. While the state protects the rights of its citizens, in return, the citizens give the state their loyalty. Under an authoritarian system, on the other hand, the state, as an entity separate from the society, demands loyalty and service from its people without any reciprocal obligation to secure their consent for its actions.

When citizens in a democracy vote, for example, they are exercising their right and responsibility to determine who shall rule in their name. In an authoritarian state, by contrast, the act of voting serves only to legitimize selections already made by the regime. Voting in such a society involves neither rights nor responsibilities exercised by citizens--only a coerced show of public support for the government.

Similarly, citizens in a democracy enjoy the right to join organizations of their choosing that are independent of government and to participate freely in the public life of their society. At the same time, citizens must accept the responsibility that such participation entails: educating themselves about the issues, demonstrating tolerance in dealing with those holding opposing views, and compromising when necessary to reach agreement.

In an authoritarian state, however, private voluntary groups are few or nonexistent. They do not serve as vehicles for individuals to debate issues or run their own affairs, but only as another arm of the state that holds its subjects in positions of obedience.

Military service provides a different but equally contrasting example of rights and responsibilities in democratic and non-democratic societies. Two different nations may both require a period of peacetime military service by their young men. In the authoritarian state, this obligation is imposed unilaterally. In the democratic state, such a period of military service is a duty that the citizens of the society have undertaken through laws passed by a government they themselves have elected. In each society, peacetime military service may be unwelcome for individuals. But the citizen-soldier in a democracy serves with the knowledge that he is discharging an obligation that his society has freely undertaken. The members of a democratic society, moreover, have it within their power to act collectively and change this obligation: to eliminate mandatory military service and create an all-volunteer army, as the United States and other countries have done; change the period of military service, as happened in Germany; or, as in the case of Switzerland, maintain reserve military service for men as an essential part of citizenship.

Citizenship in these examples entails a broad definition of rights and responsibilities, since they are opposite sides of the same coin. An individual's exercise of his rights is also his responsibility to protect and enhance those rights--for himself and for others. Even citizens of well-established democracies often misunderstand this equation, and too often take advantage of rights while ignoring responsibilities. As political scientist Benjamin Barber notes, "Democracy is often understood as the rule of the majority, and rights are understood more and more as the private possessions of individuals and thus as necessarily antagonistic to majoritarian democracy. But this is to misunderstand both rights and democracy."

It is certainly true that individuals exercise basic, or inalienable, rights--such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion--which thereby constitute limits on any democratically based government. In this sense, individual rights are a bulwark against abuses of power by the government or a momentary political majority.

But in another sense, rights, like individuals, do not function in isolation. Rights are not the private possession of individuals but exist only insofar as they are recognized by other citizens of the society. The electorate, as the American philosopher Sidney Hook expressed it, is "the ultimate custodian of its own freedom." From this perspective, democratic government, which is elected by and accountable to its citizens, is not the antagonist of individual rights, but their protector. It is to enhance their rights that citizens in a democracy undertake their civic obligations and responsibilities.

Broadly speaking, these responsibilities entail participating in the democratic process to ensure its functioning. At a minimum, citizens should educate themselves about the critical issues confronting their society--if only to vote intelligently for candidates running for high office. Other obligations, such as serving juries in civil or criminal trials, may be required by law, but most are voluntary. The essence of democratic action is the active, freely chosen participation of its citizens in the public life of their community and nation. Without this broad, sustaining participation, democracy will begin to wither and become the preserve of a small, select number of groups and organizations. But with the active engagement of individuals across the spectrum of society, democracies can weather the inevitable economic and political storms that sweep over every society, without sacrificing the freedoms and rights that they are sworn to uphold.

Active involvement in public life is often narrowly defined as the struggle for political office. But citizen participation in a democratic society is much broader than just taking part in election contests. At the neighborhood or municipal level, citizens may serve on school committees or form community groups, as well as run for local office. At the state, provincial, or national level, citizens can add their voices and pens to the continuing debate over public issues, or they can join political parties, labor unions, or other voluntary organizations. Whatever the level of their contribution, a healthy democracy depends upon the continuing, informed participation of the broad range of its citizens.

Democracy, Diane Ravitch writes, "is a process, a way of living and working together. It is evolutionary, not static. It requires cooperation, compromise, and tolerance among all citizens. Making it work is hard, not easy. Freedom means responsibility, not freedom from responsibility."

Democracy embodies ideals of freedom and self-expression, but it is also clear-eyed about human nature. It does not demand that citizens be universally virtuous, only that they will be responsible. As American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."

Human Rights and Political Goals
As a principle, the protection of basic human rights is accepted widely: It is embodied in written constitutions throughout the world as well as in the Charter of the United Nations and in such international agreements as the Helsinki Final Act (the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe--CSCE).

Distinguishing among different categories of rights is another matter. In recent times, there has been a tendency, especially among international organizations, to expand the list of basic human rights. To fundamental freedoms of speech and equal treatment before the law, these groups have added rights to employment, to education, to one's own culture or nationality, and to adequate standards of living.

These are all worthwhile undertakings, but when such entitlements proliferate as rights, they tend to devalue the meaning of basic civic and human rights. Furthermore, they blur the distinction between rights that all individuals possess and goals toward which individuals, organizations, and governments may reasonably be expected to strive.

Governments protect inalienable rights, such as freedom of speech, through restraint, by limiting their own actions. Funding education, providing health care, or guaranteeing employment demand the opposite: the active involvement of government in promoting certain policies and programs. Adequate health care and educational opportunities should be the birthright of every child. The sad fact is that they are not, and the ability of societies to achieve such goals will vary widely from country to country. By transforming every human aspiration into a right, however, governments run the risk of increasing cynicism and inviting a disregard of all human rights.

BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS •Freedom of speech, expression, and the press. •Freedom of religion. •Freedom of assembly and association. •Right to equal protection of the law. •Right to due process and fair trial.