In the wake of a global pandemic that shook world markets and brought the nation to the brink of recession, Americans have grown increasingly worried about democracy. Most see it as a weak and vulnerable system that needs major reforms to work well. Some say they have lost faith in democracy altogether, while others worry about the ability of American citizens with diverse political views to work together productively. Still more say the country is no longer a model of democracy, and nearly half think the US should abandon its role as a leader in international affairs.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows a wide gap between what Americans consider to be important goals for democracy and their perceptions of how well it works. On 23 specific measures involving the political system, elections and democracy abroad, majorities say the United States is either doing very poorly or not at all well in terms of upholding these goals. The biggest problems involve how well the United States is doing at ensuring fairness in elections, preventing corruption and protecting the civil liberties of all people.

More than a century ago, French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to America in 1831 to study its prisons, but the trip would yield a wealth of broader observations that he would codify in Democracy in America (1835). One of the most influential books of the 19th century, this classic text remains an invaluable explanation of America to Europeans and a critical warning about the potential dangers of individualism and equality.

De Tocqueville arrived in a nation that was changing rapidly and profoundly. Jacksonian democracy was reshaping the American political landscape with its philosophy of “manifest destiny” and physically expanding the country from sea to shining sea. Suffrage had been granted to most white men, and industrialization was transforming America from an agrarian to a capitalist society. These changes improved living standards for the average American but also aggravated regional tensions between North and South.

Tocqueville’s profound insights about the nature of democracy—that it depends on an individual’s ability to associate with others and that, as those associations become more frequent, he will be able to influence government decisions—are as pertinent today as when he wrote them. The American political system remains as powerful and as fragile as it was in Tocqueville’s day, with serious problems ranging from strategic manipulation of election results (like vote fraud) to efforts by executive branches to reduce the independence of the civil service and the judiciary.

HeinOnline has partnered with Alan Keely, retired Associate Director for Collection Services at Wake Forest Law School, to present this fully-searchable, interactive edition of Democracy in America that provides students and researchers with unparalleled access to the historical content that inspired Tocqueville’s thinking. With full-text links to primary sources, and an annotation by Keely that illuminates Tocqueville’s references and sources, this digital edition takes the reader back to 1831 to experience America as it was in Tocqueville’s time.

Freedom is the capacity of an agent to choose and direct his or her actions. For human beings, the freedom to think and act freely is essential for their well-being. Freedom is also the basis for human rights, which entails the protection of individuals against physical and mental exploitation. It is a prerequisite for a just society.

In the modern world, freedom is often associated with civil and political liberty, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. However, philosophers have debated the meaning of freedom for centuries. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that true freedom is the ability to do what one ought to do. In contrast, some people have interpreted freedom to mean doing whatever they want without restrictions.

There are several types of freedom, including negative and positive freedoms. Negative freedom is the absence of obstacles or barriers that prevent an individual from pursuing his or her goals. For example, a person is free to express his or her opinions in public without government interference, but he or she is not free to advocate terrorism, create panic, incite others to fight, or promote child pornography.

On the other hand, positive freedom is the presence of self-control on the part of an individual, or the ability to make choices that are in line with moral obligations and standards. A person is free to marry, but not to cheat on a spouse, or to vote for candidates with whom he or she does not agree.

The concept of freedom has a long history in philosophy, but it is particularly important in contemporary discussions of civil and political rights. Many countries have laws to protect their citizens’ freedoms. For instance, in the United States, the Constitution guarantees a person’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to own property.

In a democracy, the freedom to pursue one’s goals is dependent on the willingness of citizens to follow democratic principles and participate in public affairs. In a society where democratic principles are respected, most people can expect to enjoy freedom of expression, choice, and movement.

The word “freedom” comes from the Middle English freodom, which derived from Old English friodum or freodum (“freedom, charter, emancipation, deliverance”). Other words that come from the same root include Dutch vrijdom and Low German freidom. The concept of freedom has multiple uses in Kant’s writings: In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant used it as a transcendental idea; in the Critique of Practical Reason, he analyzed the nature of positive and negative freedom; and in the Critique of Judgement, he described how a person can achieve his or her own positive freedom through ethical action. Kant’s use of the concept of freedom in these three works is unique among philosophers. It is a defining concept in philosophy, and it continues to influence the development of politics and society today.

Law is the set of rules that govern behaviour within a society. These rules are created and enforced by a government, which also punishes those who breach the law. Laws are designed to provide stability and equality in societies. Providing people with a clear starting point of knowledge about what is acceptable and what is not, laws enable them to understand what is expected of them in their daily lives. Having fair and effective legal systems also ensures that citizens have access to a judiciary, which will uphold standards of fairness and justice and protect them from corrupt regimes and public institutions.

There are many different opinions about the meaning of law, and these have been reflected in the different legal systems around the world. The definition of law has changed over time as new social and cultural issues have arisen. For example, Max Weber reshaped thinking on the extension of state power, and contemporary military and policing techniques pose particular problems for accountability that earlier writers like Locke or Montesquieu could not have imagined.

Legal studies involve studying the history of these evolving definitions of law, and how they have shaped politics, economics and society at large. Students can also find out about the way that legal decisions are made, and the ways in which they can be challenged. There are numerous career paths for those interested in the law, from becoming a judge to working as a lawyer or paralegal. The latter two roles tend to be more remunerated, but they both require significant study and commitment to the law.

One of the most interesting debates about law involves its role in society. Hans Kelsen, for example, argued that law’s ability to impose sanctions was crucial to its functions in society. This argument was largely refuted by twentieth century legal positivists such as H.L.A Hart and Joseph Raz, who argued that the coercive aspect of law was far more limited than Kelsen had assumed.

The lawmaking process varies from country to country, but generally involves a parliament or assembly passing bills and debating them with other members. A committee will research, discuss and make changes to the bill before it is voted on by the whole parliament or assembly. If the bill is approved, it will become a law and be applied in that jurisdiction.

The legal system is incredibly complex, and studying it requires extensive research skills. The best way to learn more about the law is to shadow a lawyer or volunteer for an internship. This will give you an insight into the day-to-day life of a lawyer and how to work in the field. It will also teach you how the law is influenced by ethics, morality and social norms, and how it can be used to solve problems and promote societal change. In addition to these practical aspects, studying the law can be intellectually stimulating and help you develop your communication skills.

Amid a backdrop of regional instability and global economic volatility, Indonesia has made impressive progress on the road to democracy. Free and fair elections, a decentralized government with a newly emerging influence of regional centers, and the first peaceful transfer of power between democratically elected presidents since the fall of Suharto’s New Order regime in 1998 have strengthened Indonesia’s nascent political system.

However, despite these advances, the country faces significant challenges in its efforts to build a consolidated democracy. A number of fundamental issues have arisen, including economic and judicial corruption, the role and power of the military in politics, and the lingering effects of authoritarian rule, such as an inefficient administrative bureaucracy, pervasive red tape, and inadequate social services.

In addition to these concerns, Indonesia struggles with a range of sectarian and ideological forces that threaten the health of its democratic institutions and social fabric. These forces have coalesced to polarize the political landscape, and they may threaten the viability of Indonesia’s democratic transition in the near term.

A key challenge is the extent to which voters are capable of assessing and rewarding political leaders. Voter turnout is high and rising, but a narrow bandwidth of candidate quality and poor leadership has allowed voter discontent to fuel a wave of anti-establishment movements. Moreover, the purely utilitarian view of elections that animates Indonesian politicians privileges bureaucratic efficiency over citizens’ rights.

The neoliberal economic policies adopted since the 1980s have contributed to these dynamics, as has the failure of traditional political parties to develop the committed bases of support that would help them cultivate a credible policy agenda. A growing class of grassroots activists has emerged, and they have been successful in challenging entrenched interests through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that focus on the defense of democracy and human rights.

These NGOs, backed by an active media environment, have played an important part in incubating a generation of young Indonesians that has become increasingly engaged in politics and civic life. These young activists are a source of hope for Indonesia’s future.

Nevertheless, the emergence of these new actors has exposed the weaknesses of Indonesia’s electoral system. As a result, some political leaders have called for a return to indirect regional elections, in which local executives are elected by regional legislatures instead of directly from the public.

Such a move would undermine Indonesia’s democratic gains, and it is critical that the country’s electoral authorities remain impartial. Currently, they are required by law to consult with parliament and the government before issuing new regulations or decisions. This requirement has been criticized by activists as a potential threat to electoral authorities’ independence. Other legal provisions also pose challenges to democracy, such as a 2012 law that names the hereditary sultan of Yogyakarta an unelected governor and a 1975 decree that impedes property ownership by ethnic Chinese in the city of Jakarta. These restrictions should be repealed to safeguard Indonesia’s democracy.

Democracy is a form of government in which citizens participate directly or indirectly in the making of decisions. It was coined in the 5th century BCE from the Greek words demos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”). The central idea of this system is to distribute power equally among all people. Democracy has many challenges and pitfalls in practice. It is important to remember that it is impossible to achieve the ideal of inclusiveness, transparency and considered judgement in all circumstances.

Nonetheless, this is an essential concept that must be protected. In addition, democracy must not be viewed as simply an electoral process but should encompass a wider set of political principles and values. This means that it is necessary to question whether the current forms of democracy are morally desirable. It is also worth examining different conceptions of human society, which are likely to lead to different judgments about what forms of democracy are ethically desirable.

Some scholars argue that democracy is morally desirable independent of its outcomes. This is based on the assumption that democratic institutions can make governments more responsive to the rights and interests of a greater number of subjects than other forms of government, for example monarchy or aristocracy. Other scholars, however, believe that the morality of democracy is dependent on its results. It is essential to understand that a democratic state can be a positive influence in other countries, especially when it helps to foster good governance and economic development.

Another way to evaluate the morality of democracy is to examine how well it protects individual rights and liberties. For instance, it must guarantee freedom of expression, association and assembly (UDHR article 20). This is essential if the decision-making process is to be open and accountable. It is also vital to allow for the formation of interest groups and lobbying organisations. This allows individuals to make their opinions known and to challenge decisions that may seem undemocratic, or to take action when policies are perceived as violating human rights or causing damage to the environment.

In order for democracy to work effectively, it must be accompanied by a wide range of other measures that promote civic and personal responsibility. In particular, it is important to ensure that the population is educated and informed about the functioning of the democracy. This will help them to recognise when their representatives are failing them and to become more active in trying to improve the political situation.

It is crucial to remember that democracy is not a static concept, but must be continually developed and adapted in the light of new needs and social challenges. It is important to avoid the pitfalls of self-righteous criticism and to realise that there is no universal model of democracy. Each country develops its democracy based on its history and in the context of its national circumstances. It is also important to recognise that the decisions of a democracy have impacts beyond its own territory and across generations.

Democracy is supposed to protect the rights of all citizens, promote morality, and foster economic growth. But in the US, political infighting and money politics render these goals impossible to achieve. As a result, most Americans believe democracy is not working very well or not at all. In fact, the most common response to the question “Do you think democracy in America is working well?” is “No.”

To understand why Americans are disillusioned with their government and pessimistic about American-style democracy, it helps to look at its history. In the 1790s, US President William Penn conceived of the state as a compact among statesmen whereby they pledged their loyalty to one another and agreed that the “government should be a government of laws, not men.” This concept was a major milestone in the evolution of democracy.

But in the long run, it was a flawed idea. In time, as the industrial process accelerated, it surpassed the capabilities of a law-based system. The Founders understood this and sought to coordinate the industrial and civil processes through a government that was responsive to their needs.

The result was the Constitution, which provided for a more loosely structured federal government with more power left to the states and the people. But as the federal government expanded to handle more and more complex tasks, it outgrew this model. Today, the nation is a constitutional republic with a president and Supreme Court that are elected by the people and an electoral college that gives most of the power to the individual states. These structures are problematic for democracy because they distort the functions of checks and balances.

They also create a large gap between the US and other democracies. Most importantly, the winner-takes-all electoral system exacerbates inequality between the states. This means that voters in “deep blue” and “deep red” states have a much smaller say in presidential elections than do those in “swing” states. In addition, the system allows for an influx of big money into campaigns and the election process, allowing candidates to focus on securing their financial backers rather than promoting public interest.

Then there’s corruption. With most government services financed by taxpayer dollars, there’s always a temptation for those in charge of these programs to divert funds into their own pockets or favor certain groups over others. These problems are magnified when political parties, corporations, and special interests have a stronghold over the election process.

While most Americans are disillusioned with their politics and pessimistic about American-style democratic governance, many people outside the US have a positive view of democracy and the value of advancing economic prosperity for all. These views should be kept in mind when the US attempts to impose its own self-styled democratic model on other nations, especially Latin America and the Caribbean, where people are aware that any such effort would be self-defeating and humiliating for both themselves and their country. As a result, they have little faith in the US’s ability to spread democracy abroad.

Freedom is a concept with as many definitions as there are people in the world. A teenager is going to have a very different idea of freedom than a person in prison. And a person in America is probably going to have a very different idea of what freedom means than a person in Europe.

In the United States, the word freedom is often used to mean civil rights and liberties that are guaranteed under the Constitution. However, it is important to remember that this concept of freedom can also be very broad and can encompass a variety of aspects of people’s lives, from the right to a good education to the ability to travel freely to other countries.

While the term is frequently used in the context of politics and human rights, freedom can also be a very personal, idiosyncratic notion. It is easy to see why it would be difficult to define, especially in a political sense, because there are so many factors that influence what people feel they should have the freedom to do.

This year has been a particularly challenging and illuminating test for the idea of freedom, whether it’s in the form of the coronavirus pandemic or the fight against systemic racism. The concept of freedom is being tested in ways that it has not been tested before, and it seems that people all over the world are rethinking their ideas about what freedom really means to them in this very unique moment in history.

Throughout the centuries, philosophers have struggled to define and categorize different forms of freedom. The most widely accepted definition is that freedom is the absence of compulsion, either external or internal. However, some philosophies take this a step further, and argue that true freedom is not simply the absence of compulsion but rather the ability to choose one’s own actions, regardless of their consequences. This is sometimes called positive freedom, and it is generally regarded as the only true kind of freedom.

Other philosophies take a different view of freedom, and believe that it is not possible to achieve positive freedom in the real world. Instead, they advocate for a concept of freedom that is more focused on the protection of the civil liberties that we already enjoy. These are often referred to as civil liberty freedoms, and they are the main categories that Freedom House uses when ranking nations’ levels of freedom.

Finally, there are those philosophies that claim that the best way to preserve positive freedom is for society to rely on a set of social norms that protect against internal compulsions. This is sometimes referred to as negative freedom, and it involves a retreat into an inner citadel, or the soul, of a purely noumenal self, that is immune to outside forces. This is a state that most liberals would not want to label as freedom, because it risks masking oppressive practices in the name of protecting a nebulous ideal.

Law is the set of rules that form a framework for ensuring a peaceful society. It serves several purposes, including establishing standards, maintaining order and resolving disputes. It also protects liberties and rights. Laws are created and enforced through the legislative branch, which is made up of Congress. In the United States, the lawmaking power is held by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Laws begin as ideas, or bills, which are then studied and debated by committees before being voted on.

Almost every area of life is touched by law in one way or another. The main branches of law are criminal, civil and administrative. Civil law deals with disputes between individuals or groups, and criminal law deals with conduct that is considered harmful to the community or state. Administrative law encompasses the regulatory activities of government agencies, such as regulating businesses or creating public utilities.

Criminal law is the most well-known branch of law, and it focuses on crimes committed against people. It provides punishment for those who break the law and aims to deter others from committing similar offenses. However, it is not always successful in its goals. Criminals can still commit crimes in spite of the laws, and some courts have found it difficult to apply the law equally to all people.

Legal systems differ greatly, and different views about what law is have emerged in the scholarly literature. However, most scholars agree that there are three fundamental concepts in law: objective, subjective and functional. Objective is the principle that law should be based on a set of principles that all parties can accept and apply. Subjective is the notion that the law should reflect the values and perceptions of the individual who applies it. Functional is the idea that a law should be designed to achieve its objectives in a practical manner.

Besides the broad areas of law discussed above, there are many specific legal topics. For example, employment law covers the tripartite industrial relationship between worker, employer and trade union. Tax law includes the study of laws pertaining to income and sales taxes. Banking and financial law involve regulating the amount of capital banks must hold, and rules about how money is invested.

A quarter of a century ago, during the Asian financial crisis, Indonesia’s economy nearly collapsed. The rupiah plunged, tycoons were losing their fortunes, and protesters filled the streets in cities across the archipelago, demanding reforms. It was a dark moment for Indonesia, and the country’s future hung in the balance.

But a few years later, the rupiah recovered, economic growth returned, and Jakarta’s authoritarian legacies were largely eliminated. Today, Indonesia is one of the fastest-growing emerging economies and its democracy appears to be thriving. The routinization of politics has made it easier for citizens to hold their elected leaders accountable, and the introduction of direct regional elections mitigated the dominance of old elites in local governments.

Nevertheless, political competition remains fierce and the state still interferes with some freedoms. For example, the police regularly arrest and detain people without charge and are known to extort money, seize property, and use excessive force, including against minors. And while Indonesia’s judiciary is largely independent, judicial decisions can be influenced by religious considerations.

Indonesia’s electoral laws and procedures are generally seen as democratic, though election management bodies can be partisan. The 2019 elections saw the return of several large parties, including two with links to former President Suharto and a new party led by a controversial Islamic figure. New parties face a difficult challenge to gain recognition and must prove their eligibility in a process that can be politically and financially costly.

The country’s constitution and laws protect fundamental rights, but corruption in government is widespread, and respect for personal freedoms is eroded by sectarian rhetoric and violent acts by militant Islamist groups. The presence of these groups, some with close ties to the military, has stoked religious extremism and undercut the government’s commitment to secularism.

While the country’s democracy continues to improve, our recent Global Satisfaction Survey (GSS) found that Indonesians are polarized in their satisfaction with their government and a significant minority say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. More than six-in-ten Indonesians have a favorable view of the incumbent, President Jokowi, and most have a positive view of the ruling Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P). However, the same number have unfavorable views of opposition candidate Prabowo Subianto, as well as of his Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra).

Democracy is a system of government that gives citizens the power to vote for their elected representatives. It also ensures that citizens’ views are represented in decision making. This makes democracy a more fair and just form of government, compared to feudal or monarchical forms of rule. However, despite its many benefits, democracy has its flaws, and it requires constant vigilance to make sure that it works as intended.

A key test of a democracy’s health is how it handles a crisis. In a democracy, people are held accountable for their actions, and there is a strong sense of cooperation.

These principles are important because democracy is a delicate balance of compromise and understanding. To work, democracy must produce good laws and policies, it must deliver services and be trustworthy, and it must involve people in civic life – think elections, taxes and respect for one another. If these principles are not being respected, or democracy is suffering from a severe threat, then it must demonstrate that its institutions can handle the challenge.

There are many different ways to evaluate the success of democracy. Some of the most common include measuring the rate of economic growth, poverty rates, education levels, breadth of political participation and respect for individual rights. Other measures include measuring the quality of the government and assessing the security from foreign enemies.

A fundamental justification for democracy is that it enables the citizens to achieve their full potential. It does this by providing them with access to opportunities for education and health care that allow them to fulfil their potential and contribute to the economy. It has been shown that countries with high levels of democracy have a higher level of GDP per capita than those without it (Acemoglu et al, 2019).

In addition to this intrinsic value, there are other reasons to support democracy. One such justification is that democratic processes are able to better exploit the innate cognitive diversity of large groups. This is because they involve a wide range of people in the decision making process, and these people bring a variety of perspectives to the issue at hand.

Other arguments for democracy include that it encourages people to think carefully and rationally about the problems they face, and that it promotes a spirit of cooperation and mutual assistance. It has also been argued that it develops the moral qualities of citizens by forcing them to think about their responsibilities and the needs of other people.

In general, few theorists deny that democratic institutions must be evaluated in terms of their outcomes compared to other methods of political decision making. However, some theorists argue that democracy has an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its outcomes. These values are often referred to as “epistemological” justifications for democracy. These arguments draw on a rich tradition of philosophical thought, including that of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill. However, these arguments have been criticized as overly simplistic and inadequate for justifying democracy in its current form (Brennan 2016). The most important consideration is that, whether or not there are intrinsic justifications for democracy, it is still a useful and necessary political institution.