Question

Can there be a democracy otherwise no political freedom?

Answer 1

Whatever freedoms you have cannot exist in a political vacuum. There must be some way of assuring and protecting your rights--your freedom, and government is the answer. Even libertarians generally accept this, although they are the most ardent proponents of the maximum freedom, and believe that while government is evil, it is necessary or inevitable.
Book's Table of Contents

Related Books on this Site

The Conflict Helix:

Chapter 30. "Fields and Societies"
Chapter 31. "The State And Political System"
Chapter 33. "Societies in Empirical Perspective"
Chapter 34. "Are Exchange, Authoritative, and Coercive Societies Manifest?"
Power Kills:

Chapter 8. "What is to be Explained?" (on the nature of societies and political systems)
Figure 8.1: "The Political Triangle: Societies and Associated Political Regimes"
But not just any government will do. It must be one that not only commands your obedience to its laws, but one that in its very organization embodies what being free means to you. This is democracy. As a concept, "democracy" has not only developed many meanings since its first use by the ancient Greeks, but also meanings once well-established have changed.
You may define democracy by its inherent nature and by its empirical conditions. As to its nature, Aristotle defined democracy as rule by the people (Greek demokratia: demos meaning people + -kratia, -cracy, meaning rule or governing body) and this idea that in some way the people govern themselves is still the core sense of democracy. In the ancient Greek city states and the early Roman Republic democracy meant that people participated directly in governing and making policy. This was possible because of the small populations of these cities, hardly ever more than 10,000 people, and the exclusion of women and slaves from participation. Although limited to free males, this idea of the direct participation of the people in government was the central meaning of democracy up to modern times, and now is usually known as pure or direct democracy.


Many philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as Immanuel Kant and John Locke, disliked direct democracy, although otherwise they favored freedom. For one thing, it was impractical for nations of millions of people, or even for cities of hundreds of thousands. Clearly, a representative system was necessary. For another, they felt that democracy, as so understood, was mob rule, government by the ill informed who would simply use government to advantage them.
This distrust was evident in the eighty-five essays of The Federalist Papers (1787-1788) written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay on the proposed Constitution of The United States. They assumed that people behave to fulfill their self-interest and were generally selfish, making a direct democracy as a means to achieve justice and protect natural rights dangerous. Nonetheless, they believed strongly in the "consent of the governed," and argued for a republican form of government in which elected representatives would reflect popular will. This was a general view among the authors of the Constitution, who believed that by establishing a republic they would institutionalize the central ideas of their Declaration of Independence (1776)


HOPE IT HELPFUL BROTHER AND MARK ME BRAINLIEST