The idea is that unconsolidated democracies suffer from intermittent elections which are not free and fair.
The idea is that unconsolidated democracies suffer from intermittent elections which are not free and fair.In other words, powerful groups are able to prevent the system working fairly.
The way this is done can be simple: The candidate with the most votes gets elected.
Very often, the politicians being elected belong to a political party.
Putting aside, for the moment, the arguments of Hobbes and Locke, I believe, on the basis of plain historical fact, that governments come about naturally and maintain themselves naturally without the general will of the people; indeed, I believe, with many others I suspect, that our long established democratic governments in the world (the United States and Canada being among them) did not come about by the general will of the people, at all; nor is it necessary that it should it be maintained by the will of the people.3 One should not conclude, therefore, that democracy is necessary for good government: It may not be.
What is necessary for optimum prosperity is a state of acquiescence, which, as it happens, is the hallmark of western democracies.
The first elected parliament was De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265. Parliament was chosen by only a few percent of the people (in 1780, fewer than 3% of people joined in). After a long time, the power of Parliament began to grow.
After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the English Bill of Rights 1689 made Parliament more powerful.
The name is used for different forms of government, where the people can take part in the decisions that affect the way their community is run.
In modern times, there are different ways this can be done: After people hold an election, the candidates that won are determined.
Democratic consolidation is the process by which a new democracy matures.
Once mature, it is unlikely to revert to dictatorship rule without an external shock.