Talk:Procedural democracy

The following sentences appear to be POV:

Procedural democracy is an "imperfect" minimal democracy.

Sadly, It is common that the elites use electoral procedures to maintain themselves in power against the best interests of the people, thus thwarting the establishment of real democracy.

It is important to note that the assisting nations influence the election and the elected government, upsetting the true functioning of democracy.

Agreed. Emotive words such as 'sadly' should not appear in an encyclopedic article. However perhaps 'imperfect' is unavoidable.

'Imperfect' is definitely POV, as the definition of a 'perfect' democracy is very much in the eye of the beholder. I've attempted to de-POV it some. Please add your thoughts if you don't agree with my edits. Joffeloff 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A new approach to this philosophical discussion:

Considering the difference between procedural democracy and substantive democracy, we can compare the differences between procedural due process and substantive due process. This will give a legal context to the analysis. Procedural due process reflects the authority of government to legislate and make rules. Substantive due process involves the court and how it interprets the fundamental rights of the people against the actions of the government. The distinction is well recognized in law and by the Supreme Court in hundreds of decisions. Looking at it in this way rather than from a philosophical POV, we can say that procedural democracy reflects the rules established by government for the election of representatives, while substantive democracy reflects the basic right of the people as a whole to determine when representatives may be removed outside the elective process. A massive rebellion such as that witnessed in Egypt, Libya, Iran, Syria or even the U.S. in 1876, would thus not be seen as a violation of the law but rather as an example of substantive democracy as determined by the vast majority of the people. If we do not look at it in such a fashion, other nations will find themselves in a quandary of legal definitions and niceties and fail to see or recognize the true nature of the thing as a new and legal nation democratically established. If it is a thing not truly by the people, it will be discovered soon enough. Peninhand2u (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Vs. Illiberal democracy

What are the differences between them? If there aren't any, then maybe the articles should be merged. ZFT (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC) THE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN DEMOCRACY Practically all established constitutional democracies rely on political parties, and a large majority of constitutions worldwide recognize the beneficial role of political parties. In contrast, authoritarian regimes typically eliminate party competition. Past attempts at creating non-partisan democracy on a nation-wide scale have failed, and examples of large-scale, functioning democratic systems without political parties are limited to sub-national and local government. Parties have become a central element of constitutional democracy because they are uniquely placed to perform four key democratic functions: political parties (1) establish structures for the peaceful competition for power and political pluralism (competition); (2) represent and aggregate citizens’ interests in structures of government (representation); (3) promote stable and coherent government and lawmaking (stability); and (4) provide effective structures for opposition politics and for holding government to account (accountability). A democratic electoral system requires these functions to be fulfilled in order function effectively, whether or not political parties exist. Since parties are well placed to fulfill them, it is less likely that they will be fulfilled in the absence of parties. RISKS OF POLITICAL PARTIES A party-based system of politics does pose risks to democracy, which provide a basis for arguments against partisan democracy. Parties can serve as vehicles for small elites and their interests; they can be instruments of divisive factionalism; and party splintering may lead to instability in government. Many democratization processes have been complicated by the weakness of the political party system, for example in Iraq and Egypt. However, doing away with political parties does not necessarily solve these problems, and may in fact exacerbate these risks while eliminating any of the benefits that a party–based system can deliver. In order to promote the benefits of party politics and guard against its downsides, modern constitutions and legislative frameworks typically contain a series of principles and rules: They guarantee freedom of association for parties; establish independent institutions to administer elections and political party laws; set out requirements for parties to be registered (including the criteria for party bans); lay down some principles governing party finance such as financial transparency; define the role of parties in the formation of government; and address the basic character of the electoral system. The specifics of the electoral system shape the party system and are typically laid out in electoral laws, which may for example choose between, or combine, proportional representation and first-past-the-post electoral systems. DEMOCRACY WITHOUT PARTIES. NON-PARTISAN SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT If a democratic system was to prohibit political parties, all political candidates for elections would be required to present themselves as “independent”, with no party affiliation. This is the case in a very small number of countries around the world. Most of these countries are not democratic (e.g. United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia), while the examples of democratic nonpartisan systems are very small island states (e.g.Tuvalu and Nauru). Elections to the legislature in the US state of Nebraska are non-partisan. In a non-partisan system, the choice of electoral system is limited: the single-member district system is most suited to non-partisan democracy. However, this system favors well-known or wealthy personalities and carries the risk of being resistant to change. A nonpartisan parliamentary system might suffer from unstable government, as the lack of cohesion in parliament would tend to undermine the likelihood of reaching the parliamentary majority necessary to support a prime minister and government. Similarly, lawmaking is likely to be more cumbersome and incoherent in the absence of cohesive voting blocs in the legislature. In response to the difficulty of passing legislation and the instability of government in the absence of political parties, members of the legislature may form ad hoc voting blocs or groups. Were a non-partisan system to give some formal recognition to these ad hoc voting blocs, at least for the duration of the legislative period, the legislature may function with greater efficiency in passing laws and provide greater stability to government. Similarly, high thresholds for the passage of votes of non-confidence may decrease the likelihood that the government will be dismissed, and alleviate government instability. Whether such a non-partisan system could sustain democracy is doubtful however, given the negative experiences with non-partisan democracy in countries such as Ethiopia. The options presented in this Working Paper should be carefully analyzed in light of a country’s specific history and context. Given the limited experience with non-partisan democracy, one attractive option is an experimental approach in which flexible constitutional and statutory rules allow for subsequent adjustments to the political system. Michael Reigner2601:58A:8600:1F0:E060:B32C:B8D1:DBFE (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is even worthy of being called a stub

It's not just wildly incomplete, it's confused and in a place or two just incorrect. E.g., nothing about procedural democracy requires that it be representative in form.

It's really a mess and should be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctougis (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)