document_title: History of iPhone

question_text: when was the first iphone released in the usa

question_tokens: when was the first iphone released in the usa

root

text: History of iPhone

text: Connection to AT&T[edit]

text: When Apple released the iPhone on January 9, 2007,[23] it was sold only with AT&T (formerly Cingular) contracts in the United States.[14] After 18 months of negotiations, Steve Jobs reached an agreement with the wireless division of AT&T to be the iPhone's exclusive carrier. Consumers were unable to use any other carrier without unlocking their device.

tag: p

text: Apple retained control of the design, manufacturing and marketing of the iPhone.[24] Since some customers were jailbreaking their iPhones to leave their network, AT&T began charging them a $175 early-termination fee for leaving before the end of their contract.[25]

text: Court cases[edit]

text: Questions arose about the legality of Apple's arrangement after the iPhone was released.[26] Two class-action lawsuits were filed against the company in October 2007: one in Federal court and the other in state court.[27] According to the suits, Apple's exclusive agreement with AT&T violated antitrust law.[28]

text: The state-court suit, filed by the law office of Damian R. Fernandez on behalf of California resident Timothy P. Smith,[28] sought an injunction barring Apple from selling iPhones with a software lock and $200 million in damages.[29] In Smith v. Apple Inc., the plaintiffs said that Apple failed to disclose to purchasers its five-year agreement with AT&T when they bought iPhones with a two-year contract and cited the Sherman Act's prohibition of monopolies.[30]

text: The second case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Paul Holman, filed a complaint against Apple and AT&T Mobility that he could not switch carriers or change SIM cards without losing iPhone improvements to which he was entitled. Holman also cited a Sherman Act violation by the defendants.[31] On July 8, 2010, the case was affirmed for class certification.[32] On December 9 the court ordered a stay on the case, awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T v. Concepcion (disputed whether the state's basic standards of fairness were met by a clause in AT&T's contract limiting complaint resolution to arbitration).[33] On April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that AT&T met the state's fairness standards.[34]

text: Advertising[edit]

text: The first advertisement for iPhone, titled "Hello", aired during the 79th Academy Awards on February 25, 2007, on American Broadcasting Company (ABC).[35] On June 4, 2007, Apple released four advertisements announcing that iPhone would be released on June 29, 2007.

text: Domain name[edit]

text: On July 1, 2007, it was reported that Apple paid at least US$1 million to Michael Kovatch for the iPhone.com domain name, previously owned by Kovatch since 1995.[36] The URL now redirects to Apple's iPhone page.

text: United States release[edit]

text: On June 28, 2007, during an address to Apple employees, Steve Jobs announced that all full-time Apple employees and those part-time employees who had been with the company for at least one year would receive a free iPhone. Employees received their phones in July after the initial demand for iPhones subsided.[37]

text: Initially priced at US $499 and US $599 for the 4GB models and 8GB models respectively, the iPhone went on sale on June 29, 2007. Apple closed its stores at 2:00pm local time to prepare for the 6:00pm iPhone launch, while hundreds of customers lined up at stores nationwide.[38]

text: In the US and some other countries, iPhones could only be acquired with a credit card, preventing completely anonymous purchases of iPhones.[39][40][41] There was no way to opt out of the data plan.[clarify] At first, iPhones could not be added to an AT&T Business account, and any existing business account discounts could not be applied to an iPhone AT&T account. AT&T changed these restrictions in late January 2008.[42]

text: The Associated Press also reported in 2007 that some users were unable to activate their phones because, according to AT&T, "[a] high volume of activation requests [was] taxing the company's computer servers."[43][44] On Oct 29, 2007, the Usenet newsgroup misc.phone.mobile.iphone was created.[relevant? – discuss]

text: Early estimates by technology analysts estimated sales of between 250,000 and 700,000 iPhones in the first weekend alone, with strong sales continuing after the initial weekend.[45][46] As part of their quarterly earnings announcement, AT&T reported that 146,000 iPhones were activated in the first weekend. Though this figure does not include units that were purchased for resale on eBay or otherwise not activated until after the opening weekend, it is still less than most initial estimates.[47] It is also estimated that 95% of the units sold are the 8GB model.[48]

text: On January 11, 2011, Verizon announced during a media event that it had reached an agreement with Apple and would begin selling a CDMA iPhone 4. The Verizon iPhone went on sale on February 10, 2011.[49][50][51]

text: During Apple's official unveiling of iPhone 4S on October 4, 2011, it was announced that Sprint would begin carrying the reconfigured CDMA iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S in the US on October 14.[52][53] Cricket Wireless announced on May 31, 2012 that it would become the first prepaid carrier in the US to offer iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, beginning June 22, 2012.[54] A week later, Virgin Mobile USA became the second American prepaid carrier to offer iPhone 4 and 4S, announcing plans to release the phones on June 29, 2012.[55] Due to T-Mobile USA's inability to provide iPhone to customers raised its subscription churn rate, put the unit in an "unsustainable position", and contributed to parent Deutsche Telekom's decision to sell it to AT&T in March 2011;[clarify] T-Mobile began offering iPhone on April 12, 2013.[56]

text: Media reports emerged in early August 2013 that announced that Apple would be launching its next iPhone model on September 10, 2013, but further details were not available. Brian Barrett, Managing Editor of the Gizmodo publication, speculated that either an upgraded version of iPhone 5 or a budget version would be released.[57]

text: Outsized bills[edit]

text: Stories of unexpected billing issues began to circulate in blogs and the technical press a little more than a month after iPhone's heavily advertised and anticipated release.[58] The 300-page iPhone bill in a box received by iJustine on Saturday, August 11, 2007[59][60] became the subject of a viral video, posted by the following Monday, which quickly became an Internet meme.[61][62] This video clip brought the voluminous bills to the attention of the mass media. Ten days later, after the video had been viewed more than 3 million times on the Internet,[63] and had received international news coverage, AT&T sent iPhone users a text message outlining changes in its billing practices.[64]

text: Price drop outcry[edit]

text: On September 5, 2007, the 4GB model was discontinued, and the 8GB model price was cut by a third, from US $599 to US $399.[65] Those who had purchased an iPhone in the 14-day period before the September 5, 2007 announcement were eligible for a US $200 "price protection" rebate from Apple or AT&T. However, it was widely reported that some who bought between the June 29, 2007 launch and the August 22, 2007 price protection kick-in date complained that this was a larger-than-normal price drop for such a relatively short period and accused Apple of unfair pricing.[66][67]

text: In response to customer complaints, on September 6, 2007, Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote in an open letter to iPhone customers that everyone who purchased an iPhone at the higher price "and who is not receiving a rebate or other consideration", would receive a US$100 credit to be redeemed towards the purchase of any product sold in Apple's retail or online stores.[68]

text: iPhone 3G pricing model changes[edit]

text: With the July 11, 2008 release of the iPhone 3G, Apple and AT&T changed the US pricing model from the previous generation. Following the de facto model for mobile phone service in the United States, AT&T would subsidize a sizable portion of the upfront cost for the iPhone 3G, followed by charging moderately higher monthly fees over a minimum two-year contract.[69]

text: European release[edit]

text: This section's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2012)

tag: table

text: On November 9, 2007, the iPhone was officially launched in Europe, in the United Kingdom and Germany.[clarify] In the UK, sales go through the UK O2 unit of Telefónica, while in Germany, it is offered through Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile division.[clarify] As in the case of the previous launch in the US, customers lined up as much as a day in advance to obtain the much-anticipated phone.[citation needed]

text: Apple occasionally produced a limited number of 4GB iPhones for German and UK markets, but they never reached end customers and were used as in-store demo units. Later[when?] most of the units were disposed of.[70]

text: The initial operating model of locking iPhone owners to one selected carrier has been controversial in Europe. In Germany, Vodafone, an operator competing with the operator that Apple had locked German iPhone sales to (Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile division), brought a legal case[clarify] claiming that the arrangement was against German law. On November 20, 2007, an interim court order resulted in sales of locked iPhones in Germany being temporarily stopped. The iPhone launch in France a few weeks later through the operator Orange faced the same legal issues. Other countries that will pose[clarify] the same problems for the business model revolving around the sale of locked iPhones include Belgium, Italy, Finland, and Brazil.

text: On December 1, 2007, Tušmobil, the Slovenian mobile operator,[clarify] started selling "unlocked" iPhones without an official contract with Apple. The offer caused confusion between Apple Europe, local media, and local Apple representatives.[71]

text: On May 6, 2008, Telecom Italia announced that it had signed a deal with Apple to sell iPhones in Italy by the end of 2008.[72] It was estimated that it would probably be the second generation iPhone with 3G-UMTS capability.

text: On May 27, 2008, TeliaSonera released a press release stating that it would start selling iPhones in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia during 2008.[73]

text: On June 4, 2008, Movistar announced that it had signed a deal with Apple to sell iPhones in Spain beginning on July 11, 2008.[74]

text: On August 22, 2008, Estonian mobile operator EMT started selling iPhones.[75]

text: On August 22, 2008, Vodafone Greece released iPhones in the Greek market.[76]

text: On September 26, 2008, Omnitel released iPhones in Lithuania.[77]

text: On November 7, 2008, T-Mobile released iPhones in Croatia.[78]

text: On September 29, 2010, Elisa released the iPhone 4 in Finland.[79]

text: Southeast Asian releases[edit]

text: SingTel (in Singapore) and Globe Telecom (in the Philippines) were the first two carriers to launch the iPhone in Southeast Asia. Both carriers launched the iPhone 3G in August 2008.

text: On March 20, 2009, Telkomsel became the first telecommunications company in Indonesia to offer the iPhone 3G with customizable plans for all Telkomsel customers.[clarify][80] In the same month, Maxis of Malaysia and DiGi both launched the iPhone 3G.[where?]

text: On October 2011, StarHub launched the iPhone in Singapore. Smart Communications followed suit in December 2011 by launching the iPhone 4S in the Philippines. Smart Communications was the last telecommunications company to carry Apple's iPhone in Southeast Asia.[clarify][81]

text: Australian release[edit]

text: The iPhone 3G was released in Australia on July 11, 2008.[82]

text: New Zealand release[edit]

text: The very first iPhone 3G model released on July 11, 2008[clarify] was sold in Auckland, New Zealand to 22-year-old student Jonny Gladwell at 12:01 am NZST.[83] The iPhone 3G was only available to customers on the Vodafone network.[clarify][84] There was criticism from some New Zealand customers when Vodafone announced pricing for the iPhone 3G, as Vodafone was the only network to offer this generation of iPhone.[where?]

text: The first-generation iPhone was only available for sale in New Zealand through parallel import stores soon after it went on sale in the US. The original models available for sale in New Zealand were unlocked for use on the Vodafone network and could be used with any plan, including pre-paid plans.[85]

text: Subsequent launches of iPhone models in New Zealand have typically been a few weeks after the worldwide release.

text: On November 8, 2011, Telecom announced that they would offer the iPhone 4S on their network, along with earlier models (the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4).[86]

text: Canadian release[edit]

text: After months of high anticipation, the first iPhone to be released in Canada was the iPhone 3G. Rogers Wireless began offering 8 GB and 16 GB models on July 11, 2008. Facing a public backlash,[87] Rogers dropped the price of its service plan from CA$100 to CA$30 per month.[88]

text: The iPhone 3GS, with the new iOS 3.0 operating system, was released in Canada by Rogers Wireless on June 19, 2009. Users who signed up for a 3-year agreement with a data option[clarify] could choose between a 16 GB device for CA$199 and a 32 GB device for CA$299.[89]

text: Bell and Telus Mobility announced that they would release iPhone on November 4 and 5, 2009, respectively.[clarify][90]

text: Non-exclusive deals[edit]

text: On May 6, 2008, Vodafone announced that they had signed a deal with Apple to sell iPhone in Australia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Greece, Italy, India, Portugal, New Zealand, South Africa, and Turkey.[91]

text: Subsequent announcements confirmed that Apple is moving away from exclusive one-carrier deals.[needs update?] Soon after Vodafone's announcement, TIM announced that it would also be selling iPhone in Italy, on May 12, 2008, Optus[92] confirmed that it would sell iPhone in Australia and SingTel confirmed that it would be selling iPhone in India through its Indian Joint Venture, Airtel.[clarify]

text: On June 4, 2008, SoftBank Mobile released a press release stating that it would start selling iPhone in Japan during 2008.[93]

text: Russia's second largest mobile operator, Beeline, announced on August 28, 2008 that they signed a contract with Apple to sell iPhone on the Russian market by late 2008. The deal was rumoured to be non-exclusive, according to unofficial statements made by MTS and MegaFon. MTS and MegaFon belong to the "Russian Big Three",[relevant? – discuss] and were expected to release the iPhone 3G at the same time as Beeline. As predicted, MegaFon issued a press release regarding the iPhone 3G release on September 2, 2008.[94]

text: On November 14, 2008, Vodafone Egypt and Mobinil started selling the iPhone 3G in Egypt. iPhone 3G is priced at EG£3,800 and EG£4,600 for the 8 GB and 16 GB models respectively. Customers must also sign up for one of 3 service plans[clarify] to use the phone.

text: On September 28, 2009, Orange announced that they were going to become the second operator of the iPhone in the UK, indicating that an exclusive deal that O2 had established with Apple in 2007 had ended. Orange later announced that the iPhone would be released on November 10, with pricing plans starting from £29.36 on contract and £440 for the 3GS 16GB on pay as you go.[clarify][95][96] On the following day, Vodafone UK announced that they would be selling the iPhone by early 2010, becoming the third UK network and Vodafone's 11th country to offer the iPhone.[97]

text: Verizon Wireless[edit]

text: There had been ongoing speculation in the United States that Apple might offer a CDMA-compatible iPhone for Verizon Wireless.[98] This speculation increased on October 6, 2010, when The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple would begin producing a CDMA-compatible iPhone, with such a model going on sale in early 2011.[99]

text: On January 8, 2011, the Wall Street Journal confirmed that Verizon Wireless would, on January 11, 2011, officially announce the launch of a CDMA-based iPhone for use on their network.[100] The date in which the Verizon iPhone would go on sale was unknown, though the two most recent[needs update?] iPhone releases were made available within weeks of their launch announcement. Verizon confirmed the announcement on January 11, with an on-sale date of February 10.[101]

text: On January 11, 2011, Verizon announced that they would start carrying a CDMA version of Apple's iPhone 4 during February 2011. Existing Verizon Wireless customers could pre-order iPhone on February 3. Pricing for the iPhone 4 was $199 for 16GB and $299 for 32GB.[102] The Verizon iPhone 5 released on Friday, September 19, in the United States; it was the first GSM unlocked iPhone,[103] which worked on AT&T and other GSM networks.[clarify]

text: World timeline[edit]

text: The international release of iPhone has been staggered over several months. Today, the iPhone is available in most countries.[104]

text:
Date
Country
Carrier(s) (released date)

June 2007
 United States (1)
AT&T (2007), Verizon (February 2011), Sprint (October 2011), C Spire Wireless (Late 2011), Cricket (June 2012), Virgin Mobile (June 2012), T-Mobile (April 2013), Boost Mobile (November 2013), U.S. Cellular (November 2013)

November
2007
 United Kingdom†  Germany  France‡ (4)
O2, 3, T-Mobile, Orange, Vodafone, EE, Tesco Mobile§, Virgin Mobile (November 2013)

March
2008
 Austria†  Ireland (6)
T-Mobile, O2, Orange

July
2008
 Australia†  Austria†  Belgium‡  Canada†  Denmark  Finland  Hong Kong†‡  Italy†‡  Japan  Mexico  Netherlands  New Zealand  Norway†‡  Portugal†  Spain  Sweden   Switzerland† (23)
3, movistar, SingTel Optus, Orange (Mobistar, One, Optimus), Rogers Communications (Fido Solutions,[105] Rogers Wireless), SoftBank, Swisscom, América Móvil (Telcel), TIM, TeliaSonera (NetCom), Telstra, T-Mobile, Vodafone

August
2008
 Argentina†  Chile†  Colombia†  Czech Republic†‡  Ecuador†  El Salvador†  Estonia  Greece†‡  Guatemala†  Honduras  Hungary  India†  Liechtenstein†  Macau  Paraguay  Peru†  Philippines  Poland†  Romania  Singapore  Slovakia†  Uruguay† (45)
3, América Móvil (Claro, Comcel, Porta), Era, movistar, O2, Orange, SingTel Bharti Airtel, Aircel, Globe, Smart - December 2011, SingTel, Swisscom, TeliaSonera (EMT), T-Mobile, Vodafone, Telenor

September
2008
 Brazil†‡  Latvia  Lithuania  South Africa  Turkey† (50)
TIM, América Móvil (Claro), TeliaSonera (LMT, Omnitel), Turkcell, Vivo, Vodafone (Vodacom), Oi

October
2008
 Luxembourg†  Russia‡ (52)
Beeline, MegaFon, MTS

November
2008
 Croatia  Egypt† (54)
T-Mobile, Vodafone, Mobinil

Later
2008
 Botswana  Cameroon  Central African Republic  Dominican Republic†  Guinea  Ivory Coast  Jamaica  Jordan  Kenya  Madagascar  Mali  Malta  Mauritius  Republic of Moldova  Nicaragua†  Niger  Panama  Réunion  Taiwan†  Qatar  Senegal  United States Virgin Islands  Venezuela (79)
América Móvil (Claro, MiPhone), Chunghwa Telecom, movistar, Orange, Vodafone

January
2009
 Thailand (80)
True Move

February
2009
 Saudi Arabia  United Arab Emirates (82)
Mobily, Etisalat, du

March
2009
 Bulgaria  Republic of Macedonia  Indonesia†  Malaysia (86)
GLOBUL, T-Mobile, Telkomsel, Maxis

October
2009
 People's Republic of China†[106] (87)
China Unicom

November
2009
 South Korea[107] (88)
KT

December
2009
 Guam[108]  Qatar  Uganda  Israel(92)
GTA Teleguam, Vodafone, Orange, Pelephone, Cellcom

March
2010
 Viet Nam[109]  Armenia (94)[110]
Viettel Mobile, MobiFone, VinaPhone, Orange

September
2010
 Tunisia[111] (95)
Orange

June
2011
 Slovenia[112]  Trinidad & Tobago[113] (97)
Simobil (now A1), Telekom Slovenije, bmobile

December
2013
 Sri Lanka[114]
Dialog Axiata

May
2014
 Kosovo[115] (98)
IPKO

October
2014
 Serbia
MTS, Telenor Serbia, Vip Mobile

text: † iPhone offered by multiple carriers under contract from Apple (country not carrier-exclusive)

text: ‡ iPhone offered without contract and without carrier lock

text: § MVNO with O2

text: Activation and SIM lock bypassing[edit]

text: This section may require copy editing. (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Each iPhone normally prevents access to its media player and web features unless it has been activated as a phone through AT&T or O2. On July 3, 2007, Jon Lech Johansen reported on his blog that he had successfully bypassed this requirement and unlocked iPhone's other features with jailbreaking. He published the software and offsets for others to use.[116]

text: On August 14, 2007, Gizmodo reported verification of a method to bypass iPhone's SIM lock, allowing the phone to work freely with carriers other than AT&T. This method requires usage of a Turbo SIM card, costing approximately US$80; the method essentially tricks iPhone into believing that it is operating on the AT&T network, even when it is connected natively (not in roaming mode) to another carrier.[117] Australian Personal Computer later published a ten-step guide to unlocking iPhone, using the Turbo SIM method.[118]

text: In mid-August, UniquePhones announced an unlocking service for iPhone, only to retract the service the following week after receiving a phone call from a lawyer representing AT&T.

text: On August 24, 2007, George Hotz, a 17-year-old hacker from Glen Rock, New Jersey, broke the lock that ties Apple's iPhone to AT&T's wireless network. He confirmed that he unlocked the phone and was using it on T-Mobile's network. The hack opened up a realm of possibilities for overseas customers because iPhone was only sold in the US at the time. By unlocking it, Hotz opened up the phone to all kinds of phone networks across the world. Hotz posted the hack on his blog. The process is complicated and requires both disassembling iPhone and executing software commands on a personal computer. Hotz, along with four others across the world, reportedly spent about 500 hours unlocking the phone.[119][120]

text: Also on August 24, 2007, Engadget reported, by way of photos and a video clip, that they were called by the "iPhoneSimFree" team, who offered to show Engadget a demonstration of unlocking iPhone using a software-only method.[121] Unlike Hotz's hardware hack, the code in this hack was not made available to the general public. Sales of the unlock started on September 10. These sales occurred through several resellers who were able to order "keys" from iPhoneSimFree, then pass the "keys" to customers, allowing the customers to use the software.

text: On September 11, after one day of sales, the iPhone Dev Team announced that they had created a working "software unlock", and released it to the public for free.[122] Utilizing the existing unlock[clarify] requires some technical knowledge, although a simpler, GUI-based version was under construction. Two free, GUI-based unlocking programs that have been made available are AnySim and iUnlock Reloaded.

text: On September 24, 2007 Apple issued a warning that future updates could render unlocked iPhones unusable.[123] On September 27, 2007, owners of unlocked iPhones who took advantage of the version 1.1.1 update through iTunes reported that the update rendered the device virtually inoperable.[124] There were also reports that the update even affected some iPhones that were not unlocked,[125] and Engadget found that the firmware update had "bricked" unhacked iPhones as well. The firmware update relocks iPhones, but on October 11 iPhoneSIMFree announced that they had hacked the 1.1.1 iPhone update, not only unlocking them but also unbricking those iPhones which were bricked by the update.[126]

text: On October 16, 2007, the iPhone Dev Team released AnySIM 1.1, the free utility that unlocks iPhones. The updated version works on firmware version 1.1.1, but doesn't fix baseband problems caused by updating an unlocked 1.0.2 phone up to 1.1.1.[127]

text: On October 23, 2007, the iPhone Elite Dev-Team released Revirginizing Tool to rebuild the lock table in the seczone area to repair the damage done by the original anySIM 1.0x unlockers so unlocked 1.0.2 iPhones can upgrade to 1.1.1 without bricking iPhone. The tool is unbricking the previously bricked iPhones.[128]

text: On November 21, 2007, T-Mobile announced that due to litigation commenced against them by their competitor Vodafone, which resulted in a preliminary injunction preventing T-Mobile from locking the SIM card to T-Mobile in Germany, it will sell the phone "unlocked" and will offer iPhone without a T-Mobile contract for €999 (US$1,478) at its shops to customers in Germany until the court renders a decision.[129]

text: By the end of November, Apple released another version of iPhone firmware, 1.1.2. This version does not have many new features but breaks unlocks.[citation needed]

text: During Macworld '08, on January 15, Apple released the fifth version of iPhone firmware, 1.1.3; this version repairs loopholes used by "iPhone Hackers." The firmware, however, had been compromised prior to release and new security measures were quickly bypassed.[citation needed]

text: On February 8, 2008, Geohot released the first full software unlock for the 1.1.2 & 1.1.3 OTB iPhones.

text: For recent information see IPhone SIM unlocking.


document_title: History of democracy

question_text: where did the idea of a representative government come from

question_tokens: where did the idea of a representative government come from

text: History of democracy

text: Antiquity[edit]

text: Historic origins[edit]

text: Anthropologists have identified forms of proto-democracy that date back to small bands of hunter gatherers that predate the establishment of agrarian, settled, societies and still exist virtually unchanged in isolated indigenous groups today. In these groups of generally 50-100 individuals, often tied closely by familial bonds, decisions are reached by consensus or majority and many times without the designation of any specific chief.[4] Given that these dynamics are still alive and well today, it is plausible to assume that democracy in one form or another arises naturally in any well-bonded group or tribe.

text: These types of democracy are commonly identified as tribalism, or primitive democracy. In this sense, a primitive democracy usually takes shape in small communities or villages when there are face-to-face discussions in a village council or with a leader who has the backing of village elders or other cooperative forms of government.[5] This becomes more complex on a larger scale, such as when the village and city are examined more broadly as political communities. All other forms of rule – including monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, and oligarchy – have flourished in more urban centers, often those with concentrated populations.[6]

text: The concepts (and name) of democracy and constitution as a form of government originated in ancient Athens circa 508 B.C. In ancient Greece, where there were many city-states with different forms of government, democracy was contrasted with governance by elites (aristocracy), by one person (monarchy), by tyrants (tyranny), etc.,

text: Proto-democratic societies[edit]

text: In recent decades scholars have explored the possibility that advancements toward democratic government occurred somewhere else (i.e. other than Greece) first, as Greece developed its complex social and political institutions long after the appearance of the earliest civilizations in Egypt and the Near East.[7]

text: Mesopotamia[edit]

text: Studying pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia, renowned scholar Thorkild Jacobsen used Sumerian epic, myth, and historical records to identify what he has called primitive democracy. By this, Jacobsen means a government in which ultimate power rests with the mass of free male citizens, although "the various functions of government are as yet little specialised [and] the power structure is loose". In early Sumer, kings like Gilgamesh did not hold the autocratic power that later Mesopotamian rulers wielded. Rather, major city-states functioned with councils of elders and "young men" (likely free men bearing arms) that possessed the final political authority, and had to be consulted on all major issues such as war.[8][9]

text: Although pioneering in nature, the work has invoked little serious discussion and gained little outright acceptance. Scholars criticize the use of the word "democracy" in this context since the same evidence also can be interpreted convincingly to demonstrate a power struggle between primitive monarchy and noble classes, a struggle in which the common people function more like pawns rather than any kind of sovereign authority.[10] Jacobsen has conceded that the vagueness of the evidence prohibits the separation between the Mesopotamian democracy from a primitive oligarchy.[11]

text: India[edit]

text: Another claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent "republics" of India, sanghas and ganas, which existed as early as the 6th century B.C. and persisted in some areas until the 4th century. The evidence for this is scattered, however, and no pure historical source exists for that period. In addition, Diodorus—a Greek historian who wrote two centuries after the time of Alexander the Great's invasion of India—mentions, without offering any detail, that independent and democratic states existed in India.[12] Modern scholars note the word democracy at the time of the 3rd century B.C. and later suffered from degradation and could mean any autonomous state, no matter how oligarchic in nature.[13][14]

text: Key characteristics of the gana seem to include a monarch, usually known by the name raja, and a deliberative assembly. The assembly met regularly. It discussed all major state decisions. At least in some states, attendance was open to all free men. This body also had full financial, administrative, and judicial authority. Other officers, who rarely receive any mention, obeyed the decisions of the assembly. Elected by the gana, the monarch apparently always belonged to a family of the noble class of K'satriya Varna. The monarch coordinated his activities with the assembly; in some states, he did so with a council of other nobles.[15] The Licchavis had a primary governing body of 7,077 rajas, the heads of the most important families. On the other hand, the Shakyas, Koliyas, Mallas, and Licchavis, during the period around Gautama Buddha, had the assembly open to all men, rich and poor.[16]

text: Scholars differ over how best to describe these governments, and the vague, sporadic quality of the evidence allows for wide disagreements. Some emphasize the central role of the assemblies and thus tout them as democracies; other scholars focus on the upper-class domination of the leadership and possible control of the assembly and see an oligarchy or an aristocracy.[17][18] Despite the assembly's obvious power, it has not yet been established whether the composition and participation was truly popular. The first main obstacle is the lack of evidence describing the popular power of the assembly. This is reflected in the Artha' shastra, an ancient handbook for monarchs on how to rule efficiently. It contains a chapter on how to deal with the sangas, which includes injunctions on manipulating the noble leaders, yet it does not mention how to influence the mass of the citizens—a surprising omission if democratic bodies, not the aristocratic families, actively controlled the republican governments.[19] Another issue is the persistence of the four-tiered Varna class system.[17] The duties and privileges on the members of each particular caste—rigid enough to prohibit someone sharing a meal with those of another order—might have affected the roles members were expected to play in the state, regardless of the formality of the institutions. A central tenet of democracy is the notion of shared decision-making power. The absence of any concrete notion of citizen equality across these caste system boundaries leads many scholars to claim that the true nature of ganas and sanghas is not comparable to truly democratic institutions.[18]

text: Sparta[edit]

text: Ancient Greece, in its early period, was a loose collection of independent city states called poleis. Many of these poleis were oligarchies.[20] The most prominent Greek oligarchy, and the state with which democratic Athens is most often and most fruitfully compared, was Sparta. Yet Sparta, in its rejection of private wealth as a primary social differentiator, was a peculiar kind of oligarchy[21] and some scholars note its resemblance to democracy.[22][23][24] In Spartan government, the political power was divided between four bodies: two Spartan Kings (diarchy), gerousia (Council of Gerontes (Elders), including the two kings), the ephors (representatives of the citizens who oversaw the Kings) and the apella (assembly of Spartans).

text: The two kings served as the head of the government. They ruled simultaneously, but they came from two separate lines. The dual kingship diluted the effective power of the executive office. The kings shared their judicial functions with other members of the gerousia. The members of the gerousia had to be over the age of 60 and were elected for life. In theory, any Spartan over that age could stand for election. However, in practice, they were selected from wealthy, aristocratic families. The gerousia possessed the crucial power of legislative initiative. Apella, the most democratic element, was the assembly where Spartans above the age of 30 elected the members of the gerousia and the ephors, and accepted or rejected gerousia's proposals.[25] Finally, the five ephors were Spartans chosen in apella to oversee the actions of the kings and other public officials and, if necessary, depose them. They served for one year and could not be re-elected for a second term. Over the years, the ephors held great influence on the formation of foreign policy and acted as the main executive body of state. Additionally, they had full responsibility for the Spartan educational system, which was essential for maintaining the high standards of the Spartan army. As Aristotle noted, ephors were the most important key institution of state, but because often they were appointed from the whole social body it resulted in very poor men holding office, with the ensuing possibility that they could easily be bribed.[26][27]

text: The creator of the Spartan system of rule was the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus. He is associated with the drastic reforms that were instituted in Sparta after the revolt of the helots in the second half of the 7th century BCE. In order to prevent another helot revolt, Lycurgus devised the highly militarized communal system that made Sparta unique among the city-states of Greece. All his reforms were directed towards the three Spartan virtues: equality (among citizens), military fitness, and austerity. It is also probable that Lycurgus delineated the powers of the two traditional organs of the Spartan government, the gerousia and the apella.[28]

text: The reforms of Lycurgus were written as a list of rules/laws called Great Rhetra, making it the world's first written constitution.[29] In the following centuries, Sparta became a military superpower, and its system of rule was admired throughout the Greek world for its political stability.[30] In particular, the concept of equality played an important role in Spartan society. The Spartans referred to themselves as όμοιοι (Homoioi, men of equal status). It was also reflected in the Spartan public educational system, agoge, where all citizens irrespective of wealth or status had the same education.[24] This was admired almost universally by contemporaries, from historians such as Herodotus and Xenophon to philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. In addition, the Spartan women, unlike elsewhere, enjoyed "every kind of luxury and intemperance" including rights such as the right to inheritance, property ownership, and public education.[31]

text: Overall, the Spartans were remarkably free to criticize their kings and they were able to depose and exile them. However, despite these democratic elements in the Spartan constitution, there are two cardinal criticisms, classifying Sparta as an oligarchy. First, individual freedom was restricted, since as Plutarch writes "no man was allowed to live as he wished", but as in a "military camp" all were engaged in the public service of their polis. And second, the gerousia effectively maintained the biggest share of power of the various governmental bodies.[32][33]

text: The political stability of Sparta also meant that no significant changes in the constitution were made. The oligarchic elements of Sparta became even stronger, especially after the influx of gold and silver from the victories in the Persian Wars. In addition, Athens, after the Persian Wars, was becoming the hegemonic power in the Greek world and disagreements between Sparta and Athens over supremacy emerged. These led to a series of armed conflicts known as the Peloponnesian War, with Sparta prevailing in the end. However, the war exhausted both poleis and Sparta was in turn humbled by Thebes at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BCE. It was all brought to an end a few years later, when Philip II of Macedon crushed what remained of the power of the factional city states to his South.

text: Athens[edit]

text: Although Athens was not one of the earliest Greek democracies, it is often regarded[by whom?] as the birthplace of democracy and remains an important reference-point for democracy.i[›]

text: Athens emerged in the 7th century BCE, like many other poleis, with a dominating powerful aristocracy.[34] However, this domination led to exploitation, creating significant economic, political, and social problems. These problems exacerbated early in the 6th century; and, as "the many were enslaved to few, the people rose against the notables".[35] At the same time, a number of popular revolutions disrupted traditional aristocracies. This included Sparta in the second half of the 7th century BCE. The constitutional reforms implemented by Lycurgus in Sparta introduced a hoplite state that showed, in turn, how inherited governments can be changed and lead to military victory.[36] After a period of unrest between the rich and poor, Athenians of all classes turned to Solon to act as a mediator between rival factions, and reached a generally satisfactory solution to their problems.[37][38]

text: Solon and the foundations of democracy[edit]

text: Solon(c. 638 – c. 558 BC), an Athenian (Greek) of noble descent but moderate means, was a lyric poet and later a lawmaker; Plutarch ranked him as one of the Seven Sages of the ancient world.[38] Solon attempted to satisfy all sides by alleviating the suffering of the poor majority without removing all the privileges of the rich minority.[39] Solon divided the Athenians into four property-classes, with different rights and duties for each. As the Rhetra did in Lycurgian Sparta, Solon formalized the composition and functions of the governmental bodies. All citizens gained the right to attend the Ecclesia (Assembly) and to vote. The Ecclesia became, in principle, the sovereign body, entitled to pass laws and decrees, elect officials, and hear appeals from the most important decisions of the courts.[38] All but those in the poorest group might serve, a year at a time, on a new Boule of 400, which was to prepare the agenda for the Ecclesia. The higher governmental posts, those of the archons (magistrates), were reserved for citizens of the top two income-groups. The retired archons became members of the Areopagus (Council of the Hill of Ares), which like the Gerousia in Sparta, was able to check improper actions of the newly powerful Ecclesia. Solon created a mixed timocratic and democratic system of institutions.[40]

text: Overall, Solon devised the reforms of 594 BC to avert the political, economic, and moral decline in archaic Athens and gave Athens its first comprehensive code of law. The constitutional reforms eliminated enslavement of Athenians by Athenians, established rules for legal redress against over-reaching aristocratic archons, and assigned political privileges on the basis of productive wealth rather than of noble birth. Some of Solon's reforms failed in the short term, yet he is often[quantify] credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy.[41][42]

text: Democracy under Cleisthenes and Pericles[edit]

text: Even though the Solonian reorganization of the constitution improved the economic position of the Athenian lower classes, it did not eliminate the bitter aristocratic contentions for control of the archonship, the chief executive post. Peisistratus became tyrant of Athens three times from 561 BCE and remained in power until his death in 527 BCE. His sons Hippias and Hipparchus succeeded him.[43]

text: After the fall of tyranny (510 BCE) and before the year 508–507 was over, Cleisthenes proposed a complete reform of the system of government, which later was approved by the popular Ecclesia.[44] Cleisthenes reorganized the population into ten tribes, with the aim to change the basis of political organization from the family loyalties to political ones,[45] and improve the army's organization.[46] He also introduced the principle of equality of rights for all, isonomia,[44] by expanding access to power to more citizens.[47] During this period, Athenians first used the word "democracy" (Greek: δημοκρατία – "rule by the people") to define their new system of government.[48] In the next generation, Athens entered its Golden Age, becoming a great center of literature and art.[49] Greek victories in Persian Wars (499–449 BCE) encouraged the poorest Athenians (who participated in the military campaigns) to demand a greater say in the running of their city. In the late 460s, Ephialtes and Pericles presided over a radicalization of power that shifted the balance decisively to the poorest sections of society, by passing laws which severely limited the powers of the Council of the Areopagus and allowed thetes (Athenians without wealth) to occupy public office.[50] Pericles became distinguished as the Athenians' greatest democratic leader, even though he has been accused of running a political machine.[citation needed] In the following passage, Thucydides recorded Pericles, in the funeral oration, describing the Athenian system of rule:

text:
“
Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life.[51]
”

text: The Athenian democracy of Cleisthenes and Pericles was based on freedom (through the reforms of Solon) and on equality (isonomia) - introduced by Cleisthenes and later expanded by Ephialtes and Pericles. To preserve these principles, the Athenians used lot for selecting officials. Casting lots aimed to ensure that all citizens were "equally" qualified for office, and to avoid any corruption allotment machines were used.[52] Moreover, in most positions chosen by lot, Athenian citizens could not be selected more than once; this rotation in office meant that no-one could build up a power base through staying in a particular position.[53]

text: The courts formed another important political institution in Athens; they were composed of a large number of juries with no judges, and they were selected by lot on a daily basis from an annual pool, also chosen by lot. The courts had unlimited power to control the other bodies of the government and its political leaders.[6] Participation by the citizens selected was mandatory,[54] and a modest financial compensation was given to citizens whose livelihood was affected by being "drafted" to office. The only officials chosen by elections, one from each tribe, were the strategoi (generals), where military knowledge was required, and the treasurers, who had to be wealthy, since any funds revealed to have been embezzled were recovered from a treasurer's private fortune. Debate was open to all present and decisions in all matters of policy were taken by majority vote in the Ecclesia (compare direct democracy), in which all male citizens could participate (in some cases with a quorum of 6000). The decisions taken in the Ecclesia were executed by the Boule of 500, which had already approved the agenda for the Ecclesia. The Athenian Boule was elected by lot every year[55] and no citizen could serve more than twice.[56]

text: Overall, the Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also directest in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule, and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.[57] And even though the rights of the individual (probably) were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense,ii[›] the Athenians enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government, but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person.[48]

text: The birth of political philosophy[edit]

text: Within the Athenian democratic environment, many philosophers from all over the Greek world gathered to develop their theories. Socrates (470-399 BCE) was the first to raise the question, further expanded by his pupil Plato (died 348/347), about the relation/position of an individual within a community. Aristotle (384–322 BCE) continued the work of his teacher, Plato, and laid the foundations of political philosophy. The political philosophy developed in Athens was, in the words of Peter Hall, "in a form so complete that hardly added anyone of moment to it for over a millennium".[58] Aristotle systematically analyzed the different systems of rule that the numerous Greek city-states had and divided them into three categories based on how many ruled: the many (democracy/polity), the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), a single person (tyranny, or today: autocracy/monarchy). For Aristotle, the underlying principles of democracy are reflected in his work Politics:

text:
“
Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty, for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.[59]
”

text: Decline, revival, and criticisms[edit]

text: The Athenian democracy, in its two centuries of life-time, twice voted against its democratic constitution (both times during the crisis at the end of the Pelopponesian War of 431 to 404 BC), establishing first the Four Hundred (in 411 BCE) and second Sparta's puppet régime of the Thirty Tyrants (in 404 BCE). Both votes took place under manipulation and pressure, but democracy was recovered in less than a year in both cases. Reforms following the restoration of democracy after the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants removed most law-making authority from the Assembly and placed it in randomly selected law-making juries known as "nomothetai". Athens restored its democratic constitution again after King Phillip II of Macedon (reigned 359-336 BCE) and later Alexander the Great (reigned 336–323 BCE) unified Greece, but it was politically over-shadowed by the Hellenistic empires. Finally after the Roman conquest of Greece in 146 BC, Athens was restricted to matters of local administration.

text: However, democracy in Athens declined not only due to external powers, but due to its citizens, such as Plato and his student Aristotle. Because of their influential works, after the rediscovery of classics during the Renaissance, Sparta's political stability was praised,[60][61][62] while the Periclean democracy was described as a system of rule where either the less well-born, the mob (as a collective tyrant), or the poorer classes held power.[48] Only centuries afterwards, after the publication of A History of Greece by George Grote from 1846 onwards, did modern political thinkers start to view the Athenian democracy of Pericles positively.[63] In the late 20th century scholars re-examined the Athenian system of rule as a model of empowering citizens and as a "post-modern" example for communities and organizations alike.[64]

text: Rome[edit]

text: Even though Rome is classified as a Republic and not a democracy, its history has helped preserve the concept of democracy over the centuries. The Romans invented the concept of classics and many works from Ancient Greece were preserved.[65] Additionally, the Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries,[66] and today's modern (representative) democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models.[67]

text: The Roman Republic[edit]

text: Rome was a city-state in Italy next to powerful neighbors; Etruscans had built city-states throughout central Italy since the 13th century BCE and in the south were Greek colonies. Similar to other city-states, Rome was ruled by a king. However, social unrest and the pressure of external threats led in 510 BCE the last king to be deposed by a group of aristocrats led by Lucius Junius Brutus.[68][69] A new constitution was crafted, but the conflict between the ruling families (patricians) and the rest of the population, the plebeians continued. The plebs were demanding for definite, written, and secular laws. The patrician priests, who were the recorders and interpreters of the statutes, by keeping their records secret used their monopoly against social change. After a long resistance to the new demands, the Senate in 454 BCE sent a commission of three patricians to Greece to study and report on the legislation of Solon and other lawmakers.[68][69] When they returned, the Assembly in 451 BCE chose ten men – a decemviri – to formulate a new code, and gave them supreme governmental power in Rome for two years. This commission, under the supervision of a resolute reactionary, Appius Claudius, transformed the old customary law of Rome into Twelve Tables and submitted them to the Assembly (which passed them with some changes) and they were displayed in the Forum for all who would and could read. The Twelve Tables recognised certain rights and by the 4th century BCE, the plebs were given the right to stand for consulship and other major offices of the state.

text: The political structure as outlined in the Roman constitution resembled a mixed constitution[70] and its constituent parts were comparable to those of the Spartan constitution: two consuls, embodying the monarchic form; the Senate, embodying the aristocratic form; and the people through the assemblies.[71] The consul was the highest ranking ordinary magistrate.[72] Consuls had power in both civil and military matters. While in the city of Rome, the consuls were the head of the Roman government and they would preside over the Senate and the assemblies. While abroad, each consul would command an army. The Senate passed decrees, which were called senatus consultum and were official advices to a magistrate. However, in practice it was difficult for a magistrate to ignore the Senate's advice.[72] The focus of the Roman Senate was directed towards foreign policy. Though it technically had no official role in the management of military conflict, the Senate ultimately was the force that oversaw such affairs. Also it managed Rome's civil administration. The requirements for becoming a senator included having at least 100,000 denarii worth of land, being born of the patrician (noble aristocrats) class, and having held public office at least once before. New Senators had to be approved by the sitting members.[72] The people of Rome through the assemblies had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new laws, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or dissolution) of alliances. Despite the obvious power the assemblies had, in practice the assemblies were the least powerful of the other bodies of government. An assembly was legal only if summoned by a magistrate[72] and it was restricted from any legislative initiative or the ability to debate. And even the candidates for public office as Livy writes "levels were designed so that no one appeared to be excluded from an election and yet all of the clout resided with the leading men".[73] Moreover, the unequal weight of votes was making a rare practice for asking the lowest classes for their votes.[73][74]

text: Roman stability, in Polybius’ assessment, was owing to the checks each element put on the superiority of any other: a consul at war, for example, required the cooperation of the Senate and the people if he hoped to secure victory and glory, and could not be indifferent to their wishes. This was not to say that the balance was in every way even: Polybius observes that the superiority of the Roman to the Carthaginian constitution (another mixed constitution) at the time of the Hannibalic War was an effect of the latter’s greater inclination toward democracy than to aristocracy.[75] Moreover, recent attempts to posit for Rome personal freedom in the Greek sense – eleutheria: living as you like – have fallen on stony ground, since eleutheria (which was an ideology and way of life in the democratic Athens[76]) was anathema in the Roman eyes.[77] Rome’s core values included order, hierarchy, discipline, and obedience. These values were enforced with laws regulating the private life of an individual. The laws were applied in particular to the upper classes, since the upper classes were the source of Roman moral examples.

text: Rome became the ruler of a great Mediterranean empire. The new provinces brought wealth to Italy, and fortunes were made through mineral concessions and enormous slave run estates. Slaves were imported to Italy and wealthy landowners soon began to buy up and displace the original peasant farmers. By the late 2nd century this led to renewed conflict between the rich and poor and demands from the latter for reform of constitution. The background of social unease and the inability of the traditional republican constitutions to adapt to the needs of the growing empire led to the rise of a series of over-mighty generals, championing the cause of either the rich or the poor, in the last century BCE.

text: Transition to empire[edit]

text: Over the next few hundred years, various generals would bypass or overthrow the Senate for various reasons, mostly to address perceived injustices, either against themselves or against poorer citizens or soldiers. One of those generals was Julius Caesar, where he marched on Rome and took supreme power over the republic. Caesar's career was cut short by his assassination at Rome in 44 BCE by a group of Senators including Marcus Junius Brutus. In the power vacuum that followed Caesar's assassination, his friend and chief lieutenant, Marcus Antonius, and Caesar's grandnephew Octavian who also was the adopted son of Caesar, rose to prominence. Their combined strength gave the triumvirs absolute power. However, in 31 BC war between the two broke out. The final confrontation occurred on 2 September 31 BCE, at the naval Battle of Actium where the fleet of Octavian under the command of Agrippa routed Antony's fleet. Thereafter, there was no one left in the Roman Republic who wanted to, or could stand against Octavian, and the adopted son of Caesar moved to take absolute control. Octavian left the majority of Republican institutions intact, though he influenced everything using personal authority and ultimately controlled the final decisions, having military might to back up his rule if necessary. By 27 BCE the transition, though subtle, disguised, and relying on personal power over the power of offices, was complete. In that year, Octavian offered back all his powers to the Senate, and in a carefully staged way, the Senate refused and titled Octavian Augustus — "the revered one". He was always careful to avoid the title of rex — "king", and instead took on the titles of princeps — "first citizen" and imperator, a title given by Roman troops to their victorious commanders.

text: The Roman Empire and late antiquity[edit]

text: The Roman Empire had been born. Once Octavian named Tiberius as his heir, it was clear to everyone that even the hope of a restored Republic was dead. Most likely, by the time Augustus died, no one was old enough to know a time before an Emperor ruled Rome. The Roman Republic had been changed into a despotic régime, which, underneath a competent and strong Emperor, could achieve military supremacy, economic prosperity, and a genuine peace, but under a weak or incompetent one saw its glory tarnished by cruelty, military defeats, revolts, and civil war.

text: The Roman Empire was eventually divided between the Western Roman Empire which fell in 476 AD and the Eastern Roman Empire (also called the Byzantine Empire) which lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD.

text:
The Germanic tribal thing assemblies described by Tacitus in his Germania.
The Christian Church well into the 6th century AD had its bishops elected by popular acclaim.
The collegia of the Roman period: associations of various social, economic, religious, funerary and even sportive natures elected officers yearly, often directly modeled on the Senate of Rome.

tag: ul

text: Institutions in the medieval era[edit]

text: Most of the procedures used by modern democracies are very old. Almost all cultures have at some time had their new leaders approved, or at least accepted, by the people; and have changed the laws only after consultation with the assembly of the people or their leaders. Such institutions existed since before the times of the Iliad or of the Odyssey, and modern democracies are often derived from or inspired by them, or what remained of them.

text: Nevertheless, the direct result of these institutions was not always a democracy. It was often a narrow oligarchy, as in Venice, or even an absolute monarchy, as in Florence, in the Renaissance period; but during the medieval period guild democracies did evolve.

text: Early institutions included:

text:
The continuations of the early Germanic thing:

The Witenagemot (folkmoot) of Early Medieval England, councils of advisors to the kings of the petty kingdoms and then that of a unified England before the Norman Conquest.
The Frankish custom of the Märzfeld or Camp of Mars.[78]
In the Iberian Peninsula, in Portuguese, Leonese, Castillian, Aragonese, Catalan and Valencian customs, cortes were periodically convened to debate the state of the Realms.
Tynwald, on the Isle of Man, is the oldest continuous parliament in the world, which began in 979, although its roots go further back to the late 9th century. Tynwald was also the first place to offer universal suffrage in 1893.
The Althing, the parliament of the Icelandic Commonwealth, founded in 930. It consisted of the 39, later 55, goðar; each owner of a goðarð; and each hereditary goði kept a tight hold on his membership, which could in principle be lent or sold. Thus, for example, when Burnt Njal's stepson wanted to enter it, Njal had to persuade the Althing to enlarge itself so a seat would become available. But as each independent farmer in the country could choose what goði represented him, the system could be claimed as an early form of democracy. The Alþing has run nearly continuously to the present day. The Althing was preceded by less elaborate "things" (assemblies) all over Northern Europe.[79]
The Thing of all Swedes, which took place annually at Uppsala at the end of February or in early March. As in Iceland, the lawspeaker presided over the assemblies, but the Swedish king functioned as a judge. A famous incident took place circa 1018, when King Olof Skötkonung wanted to pursue the war against Norway against the will of the people. Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker reminded the king in a long speech that the power resided with the Swedish people and not with the king. When the king heard the din of swords beating the shields in support of Þorgnýr's speech, he gave in. Adam of Bremen wrote that the people used to obey the king only when they thought his suggestions seemed better, although in war his power was absolute.
The Swiss Landsgemeinde.

The election of Uthman in the Rashidun Caliphate (7th century).
The election of Gopala in the Pala Empire (8th century).
The túatha system in early medieval Ireland. Landowners and the masters of a profession or craft were members of a local assembly, known as a túath. Each túath met in annual assembly which approved all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and accepted the election of a new "king"; normally during the old king's lifetime, as a tanist. The new king had to be descended within four generations from a previous king, so this usually became, in practice, a hereditary kingship; although some kingships alternated between lines of cousins. About 80 to 100 túatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland. Each túath controlled a more or less compact area of land which it could pretty much defend from cattle-raids, and this was divided among its members.
The Ibadites of Oman, a minority sect distinct from both Sunni and Shia Muslims, have traditionally chosen their leaders via community-wide elections of qualified candidates starting in the 8th century.[80][81] They were distinguished early on in the region by their belief that the ruler needed the consent of the ruled.[82] The leader exercised both religious and secular rule.[81]
The guilds, of economic, social and religious natures, in the later Middle Ages elected officers for yearly terms.
The city-states (republics) of medieval Italy, as Venice and Florence, and similar city-states in Switzerland, Flanders and the Hanseatic league had not a modern democratic system but a guild democratic system. The Italian cities in the middle medieval period had "lobbies war" democracies without institutional guarantee systems (a full developed balance of powers). During late medieval and renaissance periods, Venice became an oligarchy and others became "Signorie". They were, in any case in late medieval times, not nearly as democratic as the Athenian-influenced city-states of Ancient Greece (discussed above), but they served as focal points for early modern democracy.
Veche, Wiec – popular assemblies in Slavic countries. In Poland wiece have developed in 1182 into the Sejm – the Polish parliament. The veche was the highest legislature and judicial authority in the republics of Novgorod until 1478 and Pskov until 1510.
The elizate system of the Basque Country in which farmholders of a rural area connected to a particular church would meet to reach decisions on issues affecting the community and to elect representatives to the provincial Batzar Nagusiak/Juntos Generales.[83]
The rise of democratic parliaments in England and Scotland: Magna Carta (1215) limiting the authority of powerholders; first representative parliament (1265).[84][85] The Magna Carta implicitly supported what became the English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. The emergence of petitioning in the 13th century is some of the earliest evidence of this parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people.

text: Indigenous peoples of the Americas[edit]

text: Historian Jack Weatherford has argued that the ideas leading to the United States Constitution and democracy derived from various indigenous peoples of the Americas including the Iroquois. Weatherford claimed this democracy was founded between the years 1000–1450, and lasted several hundred years, and that the U.S. democratic system was continually changed and improved by the influence of Native Americans throughout North America.[86]

text: Temple University professor of anthropology and an authority on the culture and history of the Northern Iroquois Elizabeth Tooker has reviewed these claims and concluded they are myth rather than fact. The idea that North American Indians had a democratic culture is several decades old, but not usually expressed within historical literature. The relationship between the Iroquois League and the Constitution is based on a portion of a letter written by Benjamin Franklin and a speech by the Iroquois chief Canasatego in 1744. Tooker concluded that the documents only indicate that some groups of Iroquois and white settlers realized the advantages of a confederation, and that ultimately there is little evidence to support the idea that eighteenth century colonists were knowledgeable regarding the Iroquois system of governance.[87]

text: What little evidence there is regarding this system indicates chiefs of different tribes were permitted representation in the Iroquois League council, and this ability to represent the tribe was hereditary. The council itself did not practice representative government, and there were no elections; deceased chiefs' successors were selected by the most senior woman within the hereditary lineage in consultation with other women in the clan. Decision making occurred through lengthy discussion and decisions were unanimous, with topics discussed being introduced by a single tribe. Tooker concludes that "...there is virtually no evidence that the framers borrowed from the Iroquois" and that the myth that this was the case is the result of exaggerations and misunderstandings of a claim made by Iroquois linguist and ethnographer J.N.B. Hewitt after his death in 1937.[87]

text: The Aztecs also practiced elections, but the elected officials elected a supreme speaker, not a ruler.[86]

text: Rise of democracy in modern national governments[edit]

text: Early Modern Era milestones[edit]

text:
Norman Davies notes that Golden Liberty, the Nobles' Democracy (Rzeczpospolita Szlachecka) arose in the Kingdom of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This foreshadowed a democracy of about ten percent of the population of the Commonwealth, consisting of the nobility, who were an electorate for the office of the King.[88] They observed Nihil novi of 1505, Pacta conventa and King Henry's Articles (1573). See also: Szlachta history and political privileges, Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Organisation and politics of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[89]
The Case of Proclamations (1610) in England decided that "the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm" and that "the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him."
Dr. Bonham's Case (1610), decided that "in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament".
The Virginia House of Burgesses, established in 1619, is the first representative legislative body in the New World.
The Mayflower Compact, signed in 1620, an agreement between the Pilgrims, on forming a government between themselves, based on majority rule.
During a period of renewed interest in Magna Carta,[90] the Petition of Right (1628) was passed by the Parliament of England. It established, among other things, the illegality of taxation without parliamentary consent and of arbitrary imprisonment.[91]
The idea of the political party with factions took form in Britain around the time of the English Civil War (1642–1651). Soldiers from the Parliamentarian New Model Army and a faction of Levellers freely debated rights to political representation during the Putney Debates of 1647. The Levellers published a newspaper (The Moderate) and pioneered political petitions, pamphleteering and party colours. Later, the pre-war Royalist (then Cavalier) and opposing Parliamentarian groupings became the Tory party and the Whigs in the Parliament.
English Act of Habeas Corpus (1679), safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal; one of the documents integral to the constitution of the United Kingdom and the history of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
William Penn wrote his Frame of Government of Pennsylvania in 1682. The document gave the colony a representative legislature and granted liberal freedoms to the colony's citizens.
A bill of rights is enacted by the Parliament of England in 1689. The Bill of Rights 1689 set out the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, and limited the power of the monarch. It ensured (with the Glorious Revolution of 1688) that, unlike much of the rest of Europe, royal absolutism would not prevail.[92][93]

text: Eighteenth and nineteenth century milestones[edit]

text:
1707: The first Parliament of Great Britain is established after the merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland under the Acts of Union 1707. From around 1721–42, Robert Walpole, regarded as the first prime minister of Great Britain, chaired cabinet meetings, appointed all other ministers, and developed the doctrine of cabinet solidarity.[94][95]
1755: The Corsican Republic led by Pasquale Paoli with the Corsican Constitution
From the late 1770s: new Constitutions and Bills explicitly describing and limiting the authority of powerholders, many based on the English Bill of Rights (1689). Historian Norman Davies calls the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Constitution of May 3, 1791 "the first constitution of its kind in Europe".[96]
The United States: the Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy',[97] whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress. The Americans, as with the English, took their cue from the Roman republic model: only the patrician classes were involved in government.

1776: Virginia Declaration of Rights
United States Constitution ratified in 1788, created bicameral legislature with members of the House of Representatives elected "by the People of the several states," and members of the Senate elected by the state legislatures.
1791: the United States Bill of Rights ratified.
1790s: First Party System in U.S. involves invention of locally rooted political parties in the United States; networks of party newspapers; new canvassing techniques; use of caucus to select candidates; fixed party names; party loyalty; party platform (Jefferson 1799);
1800: peaceful transition between parties

1780s: development of social movements identifying themselves with the term 'democracy': Political clashes between 'aristocrats' and 'democrats' in Benelux countries changed the semi-negative meaning of the word 'democracy' in Europe, which was until then regarded as synonymous with anarchy, into a much more positive opposite of 'aristocracy'.
1789–1799: the French Revolution

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted on 26 August 1789 which declared that "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights" and proclaimed the universal character of human rights.
Universal male suffrage established for the election of the National Convention in September 1792, but revoked by the Directory in 1795.
Slavery abolished in the French colonies by the National Convention on 4 February 1794, with Black people made equal to White people ("All men, without distinction of color, residing in the colonies are French citizens and will enjoy all the rights assured by the Constitution").[98] Slavery was re-established by Napoleon in 1802.

text:
1791: The Haitian Revolution a successful slave revolution, established a free republic.
The United Kingdom

1807: The Slave Trade Act banned the trade across the British Empire after which the U.K. established the Blockade of Africa and enacted international treaties to combat foreign slave traders.
1832: The passing of the Reform Act, which gave representation to previously under represented urban areas in the U.K. and extended the voting franchise to a wider population.
1833: The Slavery Abolition Act was passed, which took effect across the British Empire from 1 August 1834.

1820: First Cortes Gerais in Portugal under a Constitutional Charter.
1835 Serbia's first modern constitution
1848: Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March of that year, in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[99]
1848: Following the French, the Revolutions of 1848, although in many instances forcefully put down, did result in democratic constitutions in some other European countries, among them Denmark and Netherlands.
1850s: introduction of the secret ballot in Australia; 1872 in UK; 1892 in USA
1853: Black Africans given the vote for the first time in Southern Africa, in the British-administered Cape Province.
1870: USA – 15th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibits voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, colour, or previous condition of slavery.
1878-80: William Ewart Gladstone's UK Midlothian campaign ushered in the modern political campaign.[100][101]
1893: New Zealand is the first nation to introduce universal suffrage by awarding the vote to women (universal male suffrage had been in place since 1879).
1905: Persian Constitutional Revolution, first parliamentary system in middle east.

text: The secret ballot[edit]

text: The notion of a secret ballot, where one is entitled to the privacy of their votes, is taken for granted by most today by virtue of the fact that it is simply considered the norm. However, this practice was highly controversial in the 19th century; it was widely argued that no man would want to keep his vote secret unless he was ashamed of it.[citation needed]

text: The two earliest systems used were the Victorian method and the South Australian method. Both were introduced in 1856 to voters in Victoria and South Australia. The Victorian method involved voters crossing out all the candidates whom he did not approve of. The South Australian method, which is more similar to what most democracies use today, had voters put a mark in the preferred candidate's corresponding box. The Victorian voting system also was not completely secret, as it was traceable by a special number.

text: The stone inscriptions in a temple say that ballot elections were held in South India by a method called Kudavolai system. Kudavolai means the ballot sheet of leaf that was put secretly in a pot vessel called "kudam". The details are found inscribed on the walls of the village assembly hall. Actually, the once village-assembly hall is the present temple. The details show that the village had a secret ballot electoral system and a written Constitution, prescribing the mode of elections.[citation needed]

text: Waves of democracy in the 20th century[edit]

text: The end of the First World War was a temporary victory for democracy in Europe, as it was preserved in France and temporarily extended to Germany. Already in 1906 full modern democratic rights, universal suffrage for all citizens was implemented constitutionally in Finland as well as a proportional representation, open list system. Likewise, the February Revolution in Russia in 1917 inaugurated a few months of liberal democracy under Alexander Kerensky until Lenin took over in October. The terrible economic impact of the Great Depression hurt democratic forces in many countries. The 1930s became a decade of dictators in Europe and Latin America.

text: The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on 2 June 1924. The act further enfranchised the rights of peoples resident within the boundaries of the United States.

text: Post-World War II[edit]

text: World War II was ultimately a victory for democracy in Western Europe, where representative governments were established that reflected the general will of their citizens. However, many countries of Central and Eastern Europe became undemocratic Soviet satellite states. In Southern Europe, a number of right-wing authoritarian dictatorships (most notably in Spain and Portugal) continued to exist.

text: MaxRange data has defined and categorised the level of democracy and political regime type to all states and months from 1789 to this day and updating. MaxRange shows a dramatic expansion of democracy, especially from 1989. The third wave of democracy has been successful and covered major parts of previous autocratic areas. MaxRange can show detailed correlations between success of democracy and many relevant variables, such as previous democratic history, the transitional phase and selection of institutional political system. Even though the number of democratic states has continued to grow since 2006, the share of weaker electoral democracies has grown significantly. This is the strongest causal factor behind fragile democracies.[102]

text: Japan had moved towards democracy during the Taishō period during the 1920s, but it was under effective military rule in the years before and during World War II. The country adopted a new constitution during the postwar Allied occupation, with initial elections in 1946.

text: Decolonisation and civil rights movements[edit]

text: World War II also planted seeds of democracy outside Europe and Japan, as it weakened, with the exception of the USSR and the United States, all the old colonial powers while strengthening anticolonial sentiment worldwide. Many restive colonies/possessions were promised subsequent independence in exchange for their support for embattled colonial powers during the war.

text: The aftermath of World War II also resulted in the United Nations' decision to partition the British Mandate into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. On 14 May 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and thus was born the first full democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage.[103][104]

text: India became a Democratic Republic in 1950 after achieving independence from Great Britain in 1947. After holding its first national elections in 1952, India achieved the status of the world's largest liberal democracy with universal suffrage which it continues to hold today. Most of the former British and French colonies were independent by 1965 and at least initially democratic; those that were formerly part of the British Empire often adopted the Westminster parliamentary system.[105] The process of decolonisation created much political upheaval in Africa and parts of Asia, with some countries experiencing often rapid changes to and from democratic and other forms of government.

text: In the United States of America, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act enforced the 15th Amendment. The 24th Amendment ended poll taxing by removing all tax placed upon voting, which was a technique commonly used to restrict the African American vote. The Voting Rights Act also granted voting rights to all Native Americans, irrespective of their home state. The minimum voting age was reduced to 18 by the 26th Amendment in 1971.

text: Late Cold War and after[edit]

text: New waves of democracy swept across Southern Europe in the 1970s, as a number of right-wing nationalist dictatorships fell from power. Later, in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, the communist states in the USSR sphere of influence were also replaced with liberal democracies.

text: Much of Eastern Europe, Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, and several Arab, central Asian and African states, and the not-yet-state that is the Palestinian Authority moved towards greater liberal democracy in the 1990s and 2000s.

text: An analysis by the U.S. Government funded Freedom House shows that there was not a single liberal democracy with universal suffrage in the world in 1900, but that in 2000, 120 of the world's 192 nations, or 62% were such democracies. They count 25 nations, or 13% of the world's nations with "restricted democratic practices" in 1900 and 16, or 8% of the world's nations today. They counted 19 constitutional monarchies in 1900, forming 14% of the world's nations, where a constitution limited the powers of the monarch, and with some power devolved to elected legislatures, and none in the present. Other nations had, and have, various forms of non-democratic rule.[107] While the specifics may be open to debate (for example, New Zealand actually enacted universal suffrage in 1893, but is discounted due to a lack of complete sovereignty and certain restrictions on the Māori vote), the numbers are indicative of the expansion of democracy during the twentieth century.

text: Democracy in the 21st century[edit]

text: In the 21st century, democracy movements have been seen across the world. In the Arab world, an unprecedented series of major protests occurred with citizens of Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Syria and other countries across the MENA region demanding democratic rights. This revolutionary wave was given the term Tunisia Effect, as well as the Arab Spring. The Palestinian Authority also took action to address democratic rights.

text: In Iran, following a highly disputed presidential vote fraught with corruption, Iranian citizens held a major series of protests calling for change and democratic rights (see: the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests and the 2011 Iranian protests). The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq led to a toppling of Saddam Hussein and a new constitution with free and open elections.[citation needed][neutrality is disputed]

text: In Asia, the country of Burma (also known as Myanmar) had long been ruled by a military junta; however, in 2011, the government changed to allow certain voting rights and released democracy-leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. However, Burma still will not allow Suu Kyi to run for election and still has major human rights problems and not full democratic rights. In Bhutan, in December 2005, the 4th King Jigme Singye Wangchuck announced that the first general elections would be held in 2008, and that he would abdicate the throne in favor of his eldest son. Bhutan is currently undergoing further changes to allow for a constitutional monarchy. In the Maldives, protests and political pressure led to a government reform which allowed democratic rights and presidential elections in 2008.

text: Contemporary trends[edit]

text: Under the influence of the theory of deliberative democracy, there have been several experiments since the start of the new millennium with what are called deliberative fora, places (in real life or in cyber space) where citizens and their representatives assemble to exchange reasons. One type of deliberative forum is called a minpublic: a body of randomly chosen or actively selected citizens that represents the whole population. The use of random selection to form a representative deliberative body is known as sortition. Examples of this are citizens' assemblies and citizens' juries. Citizens' assemblies have been used in Canada (2004, 2006) and the Netherlands (2006) to debate electoral reform, and in Iceland (2009 and 2010) for broader constitutional change.