For 125 years, the Aymara and Quechua Amerindians as well as much of the mestizo population were dispossessed, while Bolivia's politics and economy were governed mainly by a small population of wealthy whites.

The General Content

Democracy Web is based on the premise that teaching students about differences among political systems will enhance their understanding of democracy. For this purpose, it uses Freedom House’s original 12 measures of political rights and civil liberties for its annual Survey of Freedom in the World and analyzes each of those principles within three countries, one each according to Freedom House’s basic categorizations of “free,” “partly free,” and “not free.”

The site is composed of two sections: a 12-unit online study guide and an interactive map.

The Democracy Web Study Guide is composed of 12 units or sections, each of which focuses on a fundamental democratic principle or democratic category used by Freedom House in its original measurement of political freedom and civil liberties. These include: consent of the governed, free elections, constitutional limits, majority rule/minority rights, accountability and transparency, multiparty systems, economic freedom, rule of law, human rights, and freedoms of expression, association, and religion. The unit’s first two parts offer the essential principles and history of each category of measurement. For example, the second unit, “Free, Fair, and Regular Elections,” explains the basic principles involved in free elections, the differences between parliamentary and presidential democratic systems, and what characteristics define free, fair, and regular elections. It then offers a history of elections from ancient times until today and key aspects of their development (e.g. from partial to full suffrage and the struggle of different groups to achieve universal suffrage). Each of the 12 sections then provides three country studies to help illustrate the democratic principle as it is practiced or not practiced in different countries.

The interactive Map of Freedom in the World is the global representation of Freedom House's annual comparative survey of political rights and civil liberties around the world, color coded to the basic country categories of Free, Partly Free, Not Free. One can click on any country and find its specific rankings for political freedoms and civil liberties, a link to the Country Study Guide if it is among the 34 countries selected for Democracy Web, a link to its current annual Freedom House survey report, and also links to other Freedom House reports where available (on media, internet, women’s rights, and worker rights). The menu includes a tab for Countries in order to select alphabetically any of Democracy Web’s Country Studies and also any Freedom House country or territory.

The Country Studies

The subtitle of the Democracy Web site is “Comparative Studies in Freedom.” The three country studies in each section represent one Free, one Partly Free, and one Not Free country as designated by Freedom House's annual Survey of Freedom in the World. Each Country Study provides a summary, a brief history, and an account of the general democratic or non-democratic character of that country with particular focus on the specific category being examined (consent of the governed, free elections, etc.). While it is worthwhile to assign a student a single Country Study for this purpose, it is recommended that teachers and students examine all three countries in a unit in order to compare, contrast, and appreciate the different levels of democratic and non-democratic behavior in the world. One may select other countries as well to supplement the comparative study.

For example, in the second unit, Free Elections, Poland is the country selected in the Free category. Poland emerged from Soviet communism in 1989 to develop a free political system holding regular democratic elections, but it recently has had questions raised about its democratic standards following presidential and parliamentary elections in 2015. Venezuela, the Partly Free example, went from a functioning democracy to a semi-authoritarian country but still has held elections. The opposition there won elections to the National Assembly in early 2016 but still confronts an authoritarian president and conditions of economic collapse. Azerbaijan, the Not Free example, went through a brief period of liberalization in 1992-93 after declaring independence from the Soviet Union, but then came under rigid authoritarian control by a dynastic political family.

By comparing these countries, one can examine many topics: the different elements that make up free, fair, and regular elections; the different ways to conduct elections and accord representation to the people; how democracy can be threatened; how elections can be held fraudulently; how democratic movements try to achieve freedom from authoritarian rule; and also how all of these issues may relate to conditions in the US.

Democracy Web can help teachers who want to give their students a deep understanding of the answers to such issues by exposing them to the study of numerous forms of government around the world. And because governance influences virtually every aspect of life, comparative political study is not only about governments, it is also about how the individuals in a given country interact with their governments.

Classroom Resources and Study Questions

Democracy Web is not a curriculum but an extracurricular resource — a study guide for teachers and students to use in different ways to supplement their classes. It is hoped that teachers may develop specific curriculum plans and share these with the Albert Shanker Institute (see Questionaire). Each of the 12 study-guide chapters is accompanied by a list of suggested Study Questions and activities. These may be used to structure a class, review the material in each unit, or merely offer supplements to other discussion questions or assignments based on the unit’s Essential Principles, History, and Country Studies. The questions and class activities are not simplified. This is intentional. It is hoped that the users of this study guide will be challenged by its materials and ideas. To assist teachers and students, a list of Resources for both the Essential Principle and History and each of the three Country Studies has been included in each unit for further examination of the topic. We hope to develop more resources (including video links and more interactive features) over time. Above all, Democracy Web is intended to offer teachers a unique way to foster or expand upon their students' understanding of democracy. We hope that teachers will find it to be a useful resource that is adaptable to a wide range of class levels, student abilities, and school constraints. Democracy Web is interested in teacher feedback. To send suggestions or examples of how it has been used in the classroom, please contact us.

Suggested Study Questions and Activities 

Teachers: The following are questions and activities that can be given to your students after they read the materials in each section. The questions are meant to be asked as a review exercise, although some encourage critical thinking as well. The activities can be presented as classroom exercises or as individual homework assignments. Unlike the questions, they tend to require additional research. Some call for students to create mock trials or debates that would engage the entire class. Both the questions and the activities are formatted so that they might be used directly by students, although you may rewrite them as you feel necessary. 

Essential Principles 

Class Questions 

How did the United States achieve consent of the governed, and what constitutes consent of the governed in the United States today? Did the 2016 presidential and congressional elections reaffirm the consent of the governed? Is there consent of the governed when the sole national office is won by a national minority of voters?

Abraham Lincoln asserted that a minority seeking to undermine a democratically established government in order to achieve anti-democratic ends (the preservation of slavery) could not be tolerated, and that the Union (“conceived in liberty”) had to be preserved. Can a minority assert the right to withdraw its consent to be governed? Under which conditions? What conditions does John Locke provide for legitimate rebellion and which does he not recognize?

Activities 

There are a number of issues that make consent of the governed a difficult concept to define precisely. Discuss with the class how to define consent of the governed. Who constitutes "the people" granting consent? Can consent of the governed be achieved through representative institutions or is the "direct democracy" of popular referendums required? Is a constitution legitimate if it is adopted — by either of those means — under an electoral system with limited suffrage? Does consent of the governed mean a single act of approval or is it a continuous process? Answer the questions by examining the examples used in the Country Studies section: Do the countries have consent of the governed? If so, how was it achieved? Does the manner in which consent of the governed was achieved signal potential political instability or did it create a stable constitutional system? From this analysis, ask students to write an essay: Is there a preferred means of establishing the consent of the governed? 

The 2016 U.S. elections raised many questions as to the legitimacy of the Electoral College system in selecting US presidents. Have students research the creation and intent of the Electoral College in the Constitution (e.g. by the notes of Madison of the Constitutional Convention or Federalist Papers 39 and 68).  Look at attempts to amend the Electoral College System (e.g. the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). Organize a Debate: "Is the Electoral College Outmoded: Should it be Changed?"

South Africa 

Questions

South Africa has been governed by the same party since the abolition of apartheid. Is it in danger of becoming an undemocratic, one-party state? Why does Freedom House rank South Africa as a Free Country? What aspects of governance, politics, and the economy in South Africa make it free? What issues threaten South Africa’s freedom? 

Activities 

After his death on December 5, 2013, Nelson Mandela was hailed as one of the great political leaders of the 20^th century. Read the coverage in The New York Times and Economist and other accounts of Mandela’s life (e.g. his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, or Playing the Enemy by John Carlin). What qualities have been cited as making Mandela a great leader? Compare Mandela with similar leaders of freedom movements (Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, e.g.). How were they similar? How were they different? 

Compare the profiles of South Africa, Bolivia, and Iran. Why does Freedom House designate the three countries Free, Partly Free, and Not Free? What does Freedom House uses as criteria for measuring the countries’ level of freedom? After answering the questions, review Freedom House's description of its methodology to test whether you identified the same criteria. Discuss your findings in class. 

Bolivia 

Questions 

With its 2009 Constitution, has Bolivia achieved the consent of the governed? Did it have such consent in its previous history? 

Activity 

Read articles cited in the Resources section and in The New York Times and Economist on Bolivia covering the period since December 2005 (e.g. on elections to the constitutional or general assembly in 2006, adoption of the constitution, the referendum of 2009 and elections the same year, the TIPNIS protests in 2011). In a brief essay, answer the question, “Has the adoption of the new constitution and the re-election of Evo Morales as president guaranteed more or less ‘consent of the governed’ and fulfillment of democratic rights in Bolivia?” Why or why not? Defend your opinion to the class. 

Iran 

Questions 

Although the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Constitution was adopted overwhelmingly in a plebiscite in April 1979, it is not considered to allow “consent of the governed.” Why? Contrast with the description of the constitutions and processes for approving the constitutions in Bolivia and South Africa following the overthrow of dictatorships. What makes the Iranian constitution less democratic? What provides greater protection for the consent of the governed in Bolivia and South Africa? 

How did Iranian reformers use elections as a strategy to promote democratic change? Why didn't they succeed? 

Activities 

After the reassertion of control by clerical leaders and hard-liners in the 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2012 elections in Iran and the suppression of the 2009 protest movement, is it possible to support democracy from within Iranian society? Examine cases of democratic transitions from authoritarian rule in other countries (e.g., Poland, South Africa) to identify practical methods for achieving democratic reform in Iran. What are the basic preconditions for a transition to democracy? Share your findings with the class. 

Screen one or more films of Iran’s House of Cinema school (see Resources). Ask students to identify the use of allegory and irony to express social and political criticism and to describe the current situation in Iran.

Watch the UTube posted video “Happy in Teheran” (an Iranian dance video of Pharrell Williams’s popular hit song “Happy”). Review articles regarding the video and the government’s response. Why did the video become a viral hit? What do the arrests, the reaction of President Rouhani, and the ongoing prosecution of the director show about the nature of Iran’s regime?

South Africa Country Study

Rankings in Freedom in the World 2016. Status: Free. Freedom Rating: 2; Political Rights: 2; Civil Liberties: 2.

Summary

South Africa is a republic and constitutional democracy, with a president chosen by the popularly elected lower house of a bicameral legislature. The previous system of apartheid, in which a white minority oppressed a large majority of black Africans, so-called coloureds (people of mixed-race), and Asians, was abolished starting in 1991 after decades of resistance and international pressure.

Following negotiations between the ruling National Party, the African National Congress (ANC) and other parties, an interim consensus constitution was adopted in 1993. The ANC won free, multiparty and multi-racial elections held in April 1994 for a Constitutional Assembly, which elected as president the ANC’s leader, Nelson Mandela, who had spent 27 years in prison. In 1986, the Assembly adopted a permanent constitution (by an 86 percent majority). The new constitution came into force the next year following final approval by the Constitutional Court. South Africa has held four national elections since then.

South Africa is the 25th-largest country in the world (1,219,000 square kilometers). The 2015 population is estimated at 55 million people, of whom 79 percent are black African, 10 percent are white, 8.5 percent are coloured, and 2.5 percent are Asian (mostly of Indian origin). The black population is itself diverse, with major ethnic groups including the Zulu, Xhosa, Basotho, Bapedi, Venda, Tswana, Tsonga, Swazi, and Ndebele, each speaking distinct languages. The white population is mainly Afrikaner (descended from Dutch settlers and speaking Afrikaans), but also includes a large community of British descent from the 100-year period of British colonial rule. There are 11 recognized “official” languages; English serves as the lingua franca.

Rich in natural resources, South Africa's economy is the second largest on the continent after Nigeria and growth averaged around 5 percent in the last decade. Despite this growth and the emergence of a sizable black middle class, economic disparity between white and black remains quite large. The unemployment rate, affecting mostly blacks, is about 25 percent. Thus, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), nominal gross domestic product (GDP) ranked a healthy 33^rd in the world for 2014 at $350 billion, but South Africa’s per capita gross national income (GNI) ranked only 90^th at $6,800 per annum.  

History

Origins

South Africa's black population is made up mostly of Bantu peoples, who originally migrated from northern parts of Africa, and the San (known to white settlers as Bushmen). Pastoral, agricultural, and hunter-gatherer groups developed into distinct civilizations and kingdoms over time, each with their own spoken languages, but the region did not enter the written histories of the European world until the first Portuguese explorer, Bartolomeu Dias, rounded the Cape of Good Hope in 1488.

Colonization and the Great Trek

Following a series of abortive attempts by the Portuguese to colonize the area, the Dutch East India Company established the first successful European settlement on the Cape in 1652. As the Dutch expanded this settlement, they battled with indigenous Africans, especially the Xhosa kingdom, in the Cape Frontier Wars. The indigenous people were not easily conquered and the Dutch imported slaves to meet their labor needs, mainly from Dutch colonies in Asia.

Britain initially seized the Cape colony in 1795 as part of its conflict with revolutionary France. After briefly ceding the territory to the French-backed Dutch state (1803–06), the British regained authority over the Cape in 1814. The Dutch settlers, chafing at British rule, began migrating in large numbers to areas northeast of the Cape and forged a new identity as an “indigenous” African nation, calling themselves Trekboers (Wandering Farmers), later known simply as Boers. Britain's abolition of slavery throughout its empire in 1833 spurred the Boers, strict believers in white racial superiority and separatism, to migrate to new territories in the northeast and led to the establishment of Transvaal and the Orange Free State.

The Boer Wars

The British consolidated their control over what is now South Africa by conquering Zululand in 1879. Britain had already seized diamond mines located in disputed Boer areas and annexed Transvaal. In the First Boer War in 1880, Transvaal revolted and inflicted a quick and decisive defeat on British forces. Transvaal regained its independence, calling itself the South African Republic (SAR). The Second Boer War arose after the discovery of gold in the northern region of Witwatersrand. A flood of non-Boer white prospectors and other newcomers migrated to the area, threatening Boer identity and independence. The SAR rejected British demands to give foreign whites the vote and fighting broke out in 1899. This time the British won, in part by adopting brutal tactics, including a scorched-earth campaign. A treaty signed in 1902 forced Transvaal and the Orange Free State to recognize British sovereignty.

The Union of South Africa

In 1910, Britain created the Union of South Africa, a federation of the Transvaal, Orange Free State, the British-dominated Cape Colony, and Natal (Zululand). A self-governing dominion within the British Empire similar to Australia, the Union of South Africa granted the Boers, or Afrikaners, the right to home rule. Black Africans were denied voting rights in all four states and suffered under discriminatory laws. Protests were crushed by the authorities. The Union of South Africa was a key ally of the British in World War I, driving the Germans from their colony of South West Africa (Namibia). In 1939, it joined Britain’s World War II effort after Jan Smuts regained control of the ruling party from an anti-British, pro-Nazi faction.

Apartheid

In the 1948 elections, however, an anti-British backlash brought pro-Nazi and avowedly racist parties to power. The coalition government of Prime Minister D. F. Malan began instituting apartheid, meaning “separateness” in Afrikaans. In part, this was a formalization and extension of previous British “pass laws” and land acts that remained in force and kept blacks from traveling freely, obtaining employment where they wished, or owning land. The apartheid laws, however, brought a new level of racial discrimination, instituting strict separation in all areas of life. The system was also designed to strengthen the Afrikaners' economic position against the British, placing most assets in Afrikaner hands. While the white minority of Afrikaner and English descent enjoyed formal democracy and general freedom, blacks, coloureds, and Indians lived in a repressive police state that suppressed all opposition to the apartheid system. Blacks suffered the greatest discrimination and lived in mounting economic misery and social isolation.

Opposition to Apartheid

There is a long history of indigenous African opposition to colonization, segregation and apartheid. As noted above, the Xhosa, Zulu, and other nations resisted encroachment on their territories over two centuries. The British takeover of Zululand in 1879 came at a heavy cost, including the worst colonial defeat in British history at the battle of Isandlwana.

At the turn of the 20th century, Mohandas Gandhi, who was then living in South Africa as a young lawyer, emerged as a notable activist against discrimination. He helped organize the South African Indian Congress and campaigns of civil resistance (he was arrested 20 times in efforts to reverse discriminatory laws). Inspired by the Indian Congress, black community leaders and various ethnic chiefs organized the South African Native National Congress in 1912 (later renamed the African National Congress, or ANC) to oppose racist laws by the new Union of South Africa, but without success.

Armed and Peaceful Resistance

In 1944, Nelson Mandela and others organized an ANC youth wing, which dedicated itself to organizing massive civil resistance. It organized national protests such as the Defiance Campaign in 1952 and the local Sharpeville Protest in 1960. The brutal suppression of these peaceful campaigns, however, led the ANC to take up armed resistance in 1961. Mandela, the first leader of the ANC's military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), was arrested in 1962. He was sentenced in 1964 to life imprisonment on Robben Island. Over time, armed resistance proved ineffective against the overwhelming power of state security forces. Internal civil resistance, especially by new black trade unions and student organizations, gained greater strength within the country, especially in the late 1970s and 1980s.

 The National Party government declared the country to be a republic in 1961 and withdrew South Africa from the British Commonwealth, whose members universally opposed apartheid. Beginning in the 1950s, international campaigns were organized to pressure South Africa to end apartheid through sanctions, disinvestment, and other means. The government tried to maintain support, especially from the United States, by presenting itself as a bastion against communist expansion in southern Africa during the Cold War, but even this rationale failed. By 1986, the US imposed a policy of economic and political sanctions.

In 1989, the combination of growing internal resistance and mounting international pressure led the newly installed president, F. W. de Klerk, a relative moderate, to establish negotiations with the still-imprisoned Nelson Mandela. By then, Mandela was convinced that continued armed struggle was pointless and was committed to a strategy of non-violent change. De Klerk finally ordered the release of Mandela in 1990 after more than 27 years in prison, most of them in isolation. Over time, the two leaders’ negotiations led to lifting the ban on the ANC (as well as the Pan-Africanist Congress and the South African Communist Party), an end to apartheid laws, and ultimately the adoption of a new interim constitution in 1993. Democratic multiracial elections were held in April 1994 and the ANC won in overwhelming fashion. Its leader, Nelson Mandela, was elected president by the new Constituent Assembly that May.

Consent of the Governed

There was no consent of the governed for the majority of the population under the white-dominated Union of South Africa after its establishment in 1910. Whites enjoyed basic freedoms and had the right to vote, while black Africans and Coloureds were denied the vote. In 1948 elections, racist and anti-British white Afrikaner parties seized full control of the government, renamed the country as the Republic of South Africa, and established a system of apartheid (“separateness”) — an even harsher, more discriminatory race-based authoritarian rule in which the white minority denied all human rights to blacks, coloureds, and Asians, with particular discrimination and use of violence against blacks. Since the end of apartheid and the first free multi-racial elections in 1994, the country has been a constitutional republic holding regular democratic elections and having institutions with guarantees of human rights to all groups.

Establishment of Democracy

The 1993 interim constitution established the foundation for a multiracial democracy, allowing all citizens to participate in the first free, multiracial elections for a bi-cameral parliament. These were held on April 27, 1994 (the date was later proclaimed South Africa's Freedom Day). In those elections, the African National Congress (ANC) won 62 percent of the vote, with the Afrikaaner-based National Party taking 20 percent and the Inkatha Freedom Party (an ethnic Zulu party) 10 percent of the vote. Nelson Mandela, who had spent 27 years in jail before being freed and resuming leadership of the ANC, won the presidency in a landslide vote within the lower house of Parliament, which also served as a Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution.

As required by the interim constitution, President Mandela convened a Government of National Unity (F.W. de Klerk was initially Deputy President). It oversaw the initial political transition and set in process the drafting and adoption of a final constitution in 1996 by the Constituent Assembly. The constitution reflected Mandela’s strong commitment to human rights and to building a multi-racial country. It includes a sweeping bill of rights that guarantees equal rights to all, while also allowing affirmative action to redress previous racial disadvantages. The constitution came into effect in 1997 after being approved by the South African Constitutional Court, which examined whether provisions conformed to international human rights conventions.

In 1995, Mandela also created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a means of addressing the past apartheid system. It had authority to provide amnesty to all those who came forward to tell the truth about atrocities and police actions during the era of apartheid. Only those who refused to tell the truth were subject to punishment. The televised hearings provided families with information about the fate of loved ones and the citizenry learned the facts about the former regime's brutal and elaborate efforts to control the non-white population. The process made definitively clear the apartheid regime's basic illegitimacy and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was used as a model for other post-dictatorship societies trying to come to grips with past injustices. Many people, however, criticized the proceedings because no criminal penalties were meted out to the perpetrators who revealed their crimes from the apartheid era.

Democracy Today

Today, South Africans are free to choose their government democratically. In the four democratic national elections that have been held since 1994, the ANC has held a large electoral advantage (62.1 percent in 2014, only slightly down from 66.4 percent in 1999). The liberal, multi-racial Democratic Alliance supplanted the post-apartheid New National Party as the principal opposition party (it gained 22.2 percent of the vote in 2014), while the new formed Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), a more radical party whose members split from the ANC, has emerged as the third largest party (with 6.4 percent of the vote).

In a continent known for long-ruling strongmen, Nelson Mandela made the unusual choice of serving only one term.  After the June 1999 elections, he was succeeded in the presidency by his deputy president, Thabo Mbeki, who was also elected to a second term, the constitutional limit, in 2004. Jacob Zuma, Mbeki’s deputy president and expected successor, was forced to resign over corruption charges that were later dismissed on procedural grounds (he was also acquitted of a rape charge in 2006). In a leadership fight with Mbeki, Zuma was elected head of the ANC in 2007 having gained strong support among youth and the poor as a populist leader claiming to represent the masses. Mbeki himself was forced to resign as president before the end of his term in early 2008 after being accused by the ANC leadership of misusing the police and judicial system against Zuma. After an interim successor, Zuma was elected president in 2009 by a new parliament following that year’s legislative election. He was elected to a second term by parliament after the 2014 elections.

Current Issues

Nelson Mandela died on December 5, 2013 at the age of 95. In the weeks-long mourning that took place in South Africa — and the world — Mandela was hailed as one of the great political leaders of the 20^th century. He was remembered both as a freedom fighter whose long 27-year imprisonment inspired the struggle against apartheid and also as a post-apartheid leader who fostered human dignity, democracy, multi-racial harmony and, ultimately, forgiveness of his oppressors.

Yet, the political dominance of the ANC, the organization Mandela led, has led some to question South Africa's democratic character. The ANC has little electoral competition and the newfound wealth of some of its leaders (including current President Zuma) has raised concerns over endemic corruption. In the most notable recent case, the Constitutional Court ruled in early 2016 that President Zuma had to pay the state back millions of dollars for luxury renovations of his home that he had claimed were necessary for “security,” a scandal that has given rise to calls for Zuma’s resignation. There has also been concern that both Mbeki and Zuma have led the country in a more racially biased direction, in contrast with Mandela's vision of a “rainbow nation.”

However, dominance by a coalition that was central to the overthrow of authoritarian rule is not unusual in new democracies (see, for example, Country Study of Chile). The constitution itself has established stable democratic institutions with checks and balances, the rule of law, and a federal system of local self-government. The Democratic Alliance, whose origins go back to the liberal Progressive Party during the apartheid era, is the principal opposition to the ANC in parliament. It proposes alternative programs and platforms and challenges the ruling party on numerous issues. Also, right-leaning and left-leaning factions within the ANC vie openly and some ANC leaders split from the organization to form alternative parties (including former President Mbeki), although none have had lasting success. The most recent of these is the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), now the country’s third largest party, which is led by a radical youth leader, Julius Malema. A former ANC Youth League president who challenged President Zuma for abandoning promises to the poor, Malema was expelled from the ANC in 2012 for “hate speech” and was also charged with fraud and money laundering (the charges were dropped in August 2015 when a judge ruled that the lengthy investigation had violated due process rights).

Within the ANC itself, other rivalries may cause future divisions. At the ANC’s December 2012 Congress, Zuma, after being re-elected leader, proposed the former mine workers’ union leader turned business tycoon, Cyril Ramaphosa, to serve as his deputy president and presumed successor. The election of Ramaphosa marked a significant shift from Zuma’s more radical and populist roots.

The vibrant civil society that emerged during the period of civil resistance to apartheid also works to check the abuse of power, combat corruption and lobby for policy changes. Free trade unions act vigorously to protect their members in growing defiance of the government. Civic and human rights organizations and independent media participate in all public debates, from legislation to court rulings. One of the more important debates on public policy in recent years has revolved around the Protection of State Information Bill. Initially passed by the National Assembly in 2011, the law broadly criminalized unauthorized disclosure of state information and imposed harsh penalties of 25 years’ imprisonment for disclosure of information “that might benefit a foreign government.” A number of organizations came together in the “Right2Know Campaign” in order to change the bill to include a “public interest” provision to protect whistleblowers and allow greater disclosure of “state-protected” information. After prolonged debate, a revised version of the bill passed in November 2013, but still without the provisions advocated by the Right2Know Campaign. South African journalist and media associations, along with the Right2Know Campaign, have called for President Zuma to send the bill to the Constitutional Court for review.

Civic, student and worker protests demonstrate the freedoms protected under the South African constitution but the issues they address also reflect the continuing harsh legacy of apartheid. With the advent of democracy, blacks have gained greater access to higher education and professional training and have increased their level of property ownership and involvement in social and economic sectors. A significant black business and middle class has emerged. But the gains are comparatively small relative to the overall black population (80 percent). The white minority retains much of its economically privileged status and there remains a high level of entrenched poverty (black unemployment is 25 percent).

Students and student organizations, involving both black and white students, organized protests in 2015 against proposed tuition increases at South African universities. The protests included demands to redress continuing disparities in white and black enrollment and faculty appointments and a lack of changes in administration and curricula. The day after police used force to disperse a large national demonstration held outside the parliament building in Johannesburg, President Zuma announced a freeze on tuition increases.

Another issue compounds economic disparities: the prevalence of HIV infection in South Africa. As of 2014, the country had the highest infection rate in the world: around 12 percent of the total population (18.1 percent of the adult population), with a total of 5.6 million cases. There are an estimated 2 million orphans as a result of AIDS-related deaths. The HIV crisis is an example of a tragic health policy. As infection rates began to rise in the late 1990s and early 2000s, then-President Mbeki refused to accept scientific data on how the disease was spread, prevented government distribution of anti-retroviral medication, and insisted that AIDS was a disease of “poverty” requiring “an economic approach.” In 2003, the Treatment Action Campaign, including former president Nelson Mandela, succeeded in lobbying the government to change some of its policies, but it still dragged its feet on education, treatment and prevention efforts. Jacob Zuma took more affirmative steps once in office to make anti-retro viral drug treatment broadly available (treatment now reaches more than 2 million people), to encourage testing (an estimated million people were tested in 2013), and enact government education plans for prevention (one poster showed Nelson Mandela endorsing condom use). By 2012, the number of AIDS-related deaths had dropped to 280,000. International health organizations stated that the epidemic had reached its peak. Still, the overall impact of the crisis is hard to reverse: in the 2000s, AIDS-related deaths accounted for almost 50 percent of all mortalities, and life expectancy in South Africa has declined to just over 50 years.

Since the end of apartheid, Freedom House has consistently ranked South Africa in the category “free,” with high measurements for electoral processes, political pluralism, human rights, association, and expression, and slightly lower measurements for rule of law, personal autonomy and individual rights, security, and governance. It expressed growing concern for increasing levels of societal and police-led violence and corruption as well as threats to media freedom indicated in the Protection of State Information Bill. 

History

Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic

The first significant historical examples of rule by consent of the governed were the city-state of Athens in the fifth century BC and the Roman Republic from the fifth to first centuries BC. Each was the most successful economic and military power of its time.

Athens is sometimes considered the first example of direct democracy. All citizens would assemble regularly or as needed to decide various questions facing the polis, or city-state. All major decisions, especially on issues of war, peace, and trade, were made by the citizenry as a whole gathered in assembly. For the regular daily functions of government, the Athenian Assembly elected certain categories of public servants, while many other temporary officeholders were chosen by lot from among those who volunteered. The voting body of citizens, however, included only adult males of Athenian descent, leaving out resident aliens (metics), women, and slaves.

Unlike Athens, Rome was governed through layers of representative institutions and officials. There were two representative institutions organized by class, the Senate and the Plebeian Council (People's Assembly). Senators belonged to the elite landowning class, known as patricians, and held the greater power to determine the affairs of state. The plebeians made up the rest of the citizenry, including small landowners, merchants, and farmers. Much of the power of the state, though, was exercised through a range of elective offices, determined by assemblies organized also according to class and wealth. At first, only patricians could hold public office, but the plebeians gradually sought more power within the state. In the first century BC, due partly to its class struggles, the Roman Republic succumbed to rule by a triumvirate of generals, one of whom was Julius Caesar. His heir, Octavian, later known as Augustus, became the first Roman emperor, founding a dynasty and turning the state into an autocracy.

Neither Athens nor republican Rome was democratic in today's sense. Still, their influence on our political thinking is evident in our language. As Professor Bernard Crick of Oxford University notes, “Almost the whole vocabulary of politics, ancient and modern, is Greek and Roman: autocracy, tyranny, despotism, politics and polity, republic, senate, city, citizen, representative.”

The British Experience

Another important precedent for consensual government is found in the English civil wars (1642–60). Centuries earlier, the Magna Carta had forced King John of England to recognize the rights of noblemen, the clergy, and townsmen within his realm and led to the creation of Parliament, consisting of the House of Lords and House of Commons. Future monarchs were bound to observe established laws and customs. By the 17th century, Parliament represented nearly all landowners, a large class of people. In 1640, Charles I defied Parliament, first by attempting to impose uniform religious practices on the people with the aim of  restoring relations with the Vatican, and then by raising taxes without its consent. The Parliament formed its own army, defeated the King’s forces, and eventually executed him. In 1649, the House of Commons declared England “a Commonwealth and Free State” and sought to govern without a king. Although the monarchy was restored in 1660 following a tumultuous period under the rule of Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth was significant as an historical example of republican rule.

John Locke and the Origins of the American Revolution

The consent of the governed was championed in modern political thought by the British philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), whose ideas heavily influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution. In his Two Treatises of Government and other works, Locke used the philosophy of empiricism — the view that knowledge is based on sensory experience — to thoroughly denounce the arbitrary and divinely justified rule of the monarch and to establish instead a general theory of rights that exist in “a state of nature.” Locke's arguments were in direct contradiction to those of another natural law philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, who in his book Leviathan theorized that a state of nature meant an existence that was “nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes argued that in exchange for security individuals give away their rights to an all-powerful ruler. Locke asserted differently: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone. . . . No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke explained the logic of a government based on the consent of the governed. While most people recognize the moral obligation not to do harm, he said, government is needed to protect the people's peace and prosperity against the inevitable few who would violate this natural law. Since property is disputable, government is also necessary to resolve disagreements between owners. Government is legitimate, however, only through the consent of those governed, and only as long as it satisfies the fundamental needs of the community. A government that violates the trust of the people loses its legitimacy and should be overthrown.

Locke was, in part, justifying England's Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which the Parliament replaced King James II with the joint monarchy of King William and Queen Mary and shifted greater power to itself. A century later, Locke's ideas played a central part in the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence is itself a remarkably succinct re-statement of Locke’s principle of the people's right to rebel against an unjust ruler and establish popular government. As such, it has become the world's touchstone of democracy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution

The French Revolution in 1789 drew on philosophical influences similar to those behind the successful American Revolution. In many ways, though, France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, adopted by the National Assembly, was more sweeping and radical in its assertion of human rights, equality, and the definition of a just society. In this regard, it reflected the greater influence on the French Revolution of the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his view, a good government should serve not just the interests of a collection of individuals (Locke) or the state's interests (Hobbes), but the interests of the people as a whole. It should represent the common or “general will” based on reason. His views became the basis for many communitarian philosophies and also affected the development of social democracy in Europe.

Rousseau meant the idea of “the general will” to reflect a clear, higher community interest as opposed to an individual one (for a modern example, the protection of an old-growth forest against clear-cutting by a landowner). The concept, however, could be abused. When the French Revolution descended into the so-called Reign of Terror under the radical Jacobin faction (1793–94), its leader Maximilien Robespierre used the concept of “general will” to justify imposing a dictatorship that would create a “republic of virtue” and rid France of corruption and moral decay. Robespierre was overthrown and executed for his extremism and republican rule eventually gave way to Napoleon Bonaparte, a military officer who seized power and ultimately declared himself emperor. Nevertheless, the Revolution's original ideal of the general will —”liberté, égalité, fraternité” — has continued to inspire a tradition of republicanism and freedom, both in France and around the world.

Consent of the Governed: The 20th Century and Today

Consent of the governed existed in only a minority of states until the mid–20th century. At the end of World War II, democracy was restored or introduced in Western Europe and Japan, but the repressive Soviet communist system was installed in Eastern Europe. During the 1950s and 1960s, as countries in Asia and Africa were gaining independence from European empires, many repressive colonial regimes were simply replaced by repressive authoritarian regimes. At the same time, military dictatorships seized control in a number of Latin American countries. Beginning in 1975, however, the world saw steady progress toward democracy and citizen self-rule. Authoritarian regimes and military dictatorships fell in Portugal, Spain, and Greece in Europe in the mid-1970s and then throughout Latin America and in many parts of Africa and Asia in the 1980s and 1990s. Communism collapsed in the entire Soviet bloc in 1989–91. In a large majority of cases, these systems gave way to electoral democracy and constitutional government. The number of electoral democracies counted by Freedom House’s Survey of Freedom in the World rose from 44 in 1973, when the annual review was launched, to 122 (out of 195 countries and territories) in 2013.

Large exceptions have remained, however, including the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, the Russian Federation (and many other former Soviet republics that emerged as independent countries), Cuba, most of the Middle East, and many parts of Africa and Asia. And recent trends have been negative. While the number of countries considered electoral democracies increased from 122 in 2013 to 125 in the 2016 Freedom in the World Survey, Freedom House reported the tenth straight year of overall declines in its freedom rankings. There continue to be a large majority of countries and territories (109 of the 195 surveyed) that are considered “partly free” (59) or “not free” (50), representing 60 percent of the world’s total population of 7.3 billion people.

Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic The first significant historical examples of rule by consent of the governed were the city-state of Athens in the fifth century BC and the Roman Republic from the fifth to first centuries BC. Each was the most successful economic and military power of its time and region. Athens is sometimes considered the first example of direct democracy. All citizens would assemble regularly or as needed to decide various questions facing the polis, or city-state. The Athenian Assembly elected certain categories of public servants, and many other temporary officeholders were chosen by lot from among those who volunteered, but all major decisions were made by the citizenry as a whole. The voting body of citizens, it must be noted, included only adult males of Athenian descent, leaving out resident aliens (metics), women, and slaves. Unlike Athens, Rome was governed through layers of representative institutions and officials. There were a number of assemblies organized by class and wealth, the most important of which were the Senate and the Council of the Plebs. Senators belonged to the elite landowning class, known as patricians, while the plebeians made up the rest of the citizenry, including landowners, merchants, and farmers. At first, only patricians could hold public office, but the plebeians gradually sought more power within the state, choosing officials known as tribunes to protect their rights. In the first century BC, driven in part by its class struggles, the Roman Republic succumbed to rule by a series of generals, one of whom was Julius Caesar. His heir, Octavian, later known as Augustus, became the first of the Roman emperors, founding a dynasty and turning the state into an autocracy. Athens and republican Rome, while not democratic in today's sense and largely dependent on slavery for labor, remain models for direct and representative democracy. Their influence on our political thinking is evident in our language. As Professor Bernard Crick of Oxford University notes, "Almost the whole vocabulary of politics, ancient and modern, is Greek and Roman: autocracy, tyranny, despotism, politics and polity, republic, senate, city, citizen, representative." The British Experience Another important precedent for consensual government is found in the English civil wars (1642–60). Centuries earlier, the Magna Carta had forced the king of England to recognize the rights of noblemen, the clergy, and townsmen. This led to the eventual creation of Parliament, consisting of the House of Lords and House of Commons, and bound future monarchs to observe established laws and customs. By the 17th century, Parliament represented nearly all landowners, a large class of people. When Charles I defied Parliament by attempting to impose uniform (Anglican) religious practices and raise taxes without consent, it formed its own army, defeated his forces, and eventually executed him. In 1649, the House of Commons declared England "a Commonwealth and Free State" and sought to govern without a king. The monarchy was restored in 1660, but the Commonwealth was significant as a historical example of republican rule, as an influence on the subsequent adoption of the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and as part of the religious strife that drove many English dissenters to immigrate to America. John Locke and the Origins of the American Revolution The consent of the governed was championed in modern political thought by the British philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), whose ideas heavily influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution. In his Two Treatises of Government and other works, Locke used the philosophy of empiricism—the view that knowledge is based on sensory experience—to thoroughly denounce the arbitrary and divinely justified rule of the monarch, and to establish a general theory of rights that exist in "a state of nature"—a hypothetical condition in which people live without government. Locke's arguments were in direct contradiction to those of another natural law philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, who in his book Leviathan theorized that a state of nature meant a "nasty, brutish, and short" existence. Hobbes argued that in exchange for security, individuals give away their rights to an all-powerful ruler. Locke asserted that the state of nature was fundamentally different: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone... No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke explained the logic of a government based on the consent of the governed. While most recognize the moral obligation not to do harm, he said, government is needed to protect the people's peace and prosperity against the inevitable few who would violate the natural law. Since property is disputable, government is also necessary to resolve disagreements between owners. Government is legitimate only through the consent of the governed, and only as long as it satisfies these fundamental needs of the community. A government that violates the trust of the people loses its legitimacy and should be overthrown. When the French Revolution descended into the so-called Reign of Terror under the radical Jacobin faction (1793–94), the leader Maximilien Robespierre used the "general will" to justify imposing a dictatorship that would create a "republic of virtue" and rid France of corruption and moral decay. Locke was, in part, justifying England's Glorious Revolution of 1688, which replaced King James II and shifted greater power to Parliament. A century later, Locke's ideas played a central part in the American Revolution. (Thomas Jefferson called him one of history's greatest men.) The Declaration of Independence is itself a remarkably succinct restatement of the people's right to rebel against an unjust ruler and establish popular government. As such, it has become the world's touchstone of democracy. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution The French Revolution in 1789 drew on philosophical influences similar to those behind the successful American Revolution. In many ways, though, France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, adopted by the National Assembly, was more sweeping and radical in its assertion of human rights, equality, and the definition of a just society. In this regard, it reflected the greater influence on the French Revolution of the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his view, a good government should serve not just the interests of a collection of individuals (Locke) or the state's interests (Hobbes), but the interests of the people as a whole. It should represent the common or "general will," which was based on reason. His views became the basis for many communitarian philosophies and also affected the development of social democracy in Europe. The idea of the "general will," however, was often abused. Rousseau meant the idea to reflect a clear, higher community interest as opposed to an individual one (for a modern example, the protection of a forest against clear-cutting by a landowner). But his writings are open to interpretation. When the French Revolution descended into the so-called Reign of Terror under the radical Jacobin faction (1793–94), the leader Maximilien Robespierre used the "general will" to justify imposing a dictatorship that would create a "republic of virtue" and rid France of corruption and moral decay. Robespierre was overthrown and executed for his extremism, and republican rule eventually gave way to Napoleon Bonaparte, a general who declared himself emperor. But the Revolution's original ideal of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" has continued to inspire a tradition of republicanism and freedom, both in France and around the world. Consent of the Governed: The 20th Century and Today Consent of the governed existed in a minority of states until the mid–20th century. At the end of World War II, democracy was restored or introduced in Western Europe and Japan, but the repressive Soviet system was installed in Eastern Europe. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, as countries in Asia and Africa were gaining independence from European empires, many colonial regimes were simply replaced with authoritarian rule. At the same time, military dictatorships seized control in a number of Latin American countries. Since 1975, however, there has been a steady progress toward democracy and rule by citizens. Authoritarian regimes and military dictatorships fell, and communism collapsed throughout the Soviet bloc. In most cases, these systems gave way to electoral democracy and constitutional government. Major exceptions remain, but today electoral democracy is practiced in 123 out of 193 countries, according to the Freedom in the World 2007 survey. 3722 reads

Resources

Essential Principles

The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy (2008). New Haven: Yale Law School.
     13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, 1865–70 (link).
     Civil Rights Act of 1964, July 2, 1964 (link) and  Voting Rights Act of 1965, August 6, 1965 (link).
     Constitution of the United States, 1787 (link).
     Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, 1789–91 (link).

Crick, Bernard. Democracy: A Very Short Introduction (2002) New York: Oxford University Press. See also other volumes in the Very Short Introduction series.

Diamond, Larry. “Facing Up to the Democracy Deficit.” Journal of Democracy. 26: 1. January 2015.

Keele, Richard. "Elections and Election Systems from Around the World" (link). This site provides online resource links to election-related documents and web sources.

The Washington Post
     "Do Voter ID Laws Suppress Minority Voting? Yes. We Did the Research" OpinionbyZoltan L. Hajnal, Nazita Lajevardi and Lindsay Nielson. February 15, 2017.

Recommended Films
   "Eyes on the Prize" (1987). Public Broadcasting Service. A documentary history of the American civil rights movement.
   "A Force More Powerful" (2000). Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). A documentary on nonviolent political movements narrated by Ben Kingsley.

Poland

Economist magazine: Topics Index: Poland.
The New York Times: World Topics: Poland.

Applebaum, Anne. Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe  (2012). New York: Doubleday. See also: Book Review, by John Connelly, The Washington Post (October 26, 2012).

Ash, Timothy Garton, The Polish Revolution. 3rd ed. (2002). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Chenoweth, Eric. “Thoughts on Solidarity's 25th Anniversary” (February 2006). Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe (www.idee.org).

Donovan, Jeffrey. " Solidarity: The Trade Union That Changed the World" (August 25, 2005). Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (www.rferl.org).

U.S. Department of State Human Rights Country Reports (go to current year Country Report drop down menu for Poland).

Recommended Films“
   "Three Days in Szczecin” (1976). BBC. See also New York Times Review  (December 12, 1985).
   “Interrogation” (1982). Directed by Ryszard Bugajski.
   “Katyń” (2007). Directed by Andrzej Wajda.
   “Man of Marble” (1976), “Man of Iron” (1981), and “Man of Hope” (2013). Directed by Andrzej Wajda.

Venezuela

Economist magazine: Topics Index: Venezuela.
The New York Times: World Topics: Venezuela. 

Corrales, Javier. "Hugo Boss: Fashioning Dictatorship for a Democratic Age." Foreign Policy (Oct. 19, 2009).

Corrales, Javier & Penfold, Michael (April 2007). “Venezuela: Crowding Out the Opposition.” Journal of Democracy, 18 (2), Apr. 2007, 99-113.

Human Rights Watch, "A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities" (link).

International Crisis Group/Venezuela (home page)

Organization of American States (home page)
   Letter of the Secretary General to the CNE on the December 6 Elections (Nov. 10, 2015).
   Letter of the Secretary General to the President of Venezuela (Jan. 12, 2016).

The Washington Post. 
   “A Revitalized Voice for the Americas” by Jackson Diehl (Jan. 24, 2016).
    “Venezuela on the Brink of Complete Economic Collapse" (Jan. 29, 2016).     

U.S. Department of State Human Rights Country Reports (go to current year Country Report drop down menu for Venezuela).

Azerbaijan

Economist magazine, Topics Index: Azerbaijan.
   Selected Article: “How Not to Prepare for Elections,” (Sept. 2, 2013).
The New York Times: World Topics: Azerbaijan.

Alieva, Leila. "Azerbaijan's Frustrating Elections." Journal of Democracy 17, no. 2 (April 2006): 147–160.

BBC: “Cracking Down on Dissent In Ilham Aliyev’s Azerbaijan” (May 28, 2013).

Eurasianet.org: Azerbaijan (news articles and analyses from Eurasianet).

The Guardian
   "Plush Hotels and Caviar Diplomacy: How Azerbaijan Elite Woo MPs” (Nov. 23, 2013).

Index on Censorship
   “Azerbaijan Must Stop Repressing Civil Society,” Human Rights House Network (Nov. 2014). 

Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe
   “The Azerbaijan Elections: Observer Mission to October 3, 2003 Presidential Elections” (link).

International Herald Tribune
   “Vote Allegations Rattle Eurovision Song Contest” (May 22, 2013).

OSCE/ODIHR, “Election Observation Mission Final Report: Presidential Election of 9 October 2013” (link).

Sports for Rights. “No Holds Barred: Repression in Aliyev’s Third Term” (October 2015).

Uncaptive Minds, Special Issue, “25 Years After 1989-91: Reflections on Unfinished Revolutions” (October 2015).
   See presentations of Arif Hajili (pp. 39-41) and Isa Gambar (pp. 61-64). 

U.S. Department of State Human Rights Country Reports (go to current year Country Report drop down menu for Azerbaijan).