When i watch and hear what W. Bush talks about the gulf and some arabic countries and the lack of democracy in them, i wonder what's democracy ?!
In his last visit he talked about democracy in the UAE ( of course he doesnt mean by democracy the monarchy regime ), so what does he mean by it?

what do you think are the characteristics of a democratic country ? rather than how the country is ruled and governed ( the regime system ).
is Oman considered as a democratic country ? explain

Is doing whatever you want, saying whatever you like considered democracy ? ( even if it's wrong ) if yes, then catching criminals, is considered dictatorial isn't it?

Is there a universal definition for democracy where everyone agrees on it ?

I consider democracy a form of equality; hence it must satisfy both divisions. Bush's speech is nowhere close to the definition of initiating a democratic system, he's expecting people to side with him, instead of believing and doing what they believe is suitable. He can talk all he wants, day and night and the Arabs can nod along, but it's just an image and hopefully no actions will be taken to side with him.

The definition of "democracy" is "government by the people". In its earliest and most literal sense, it meant that any decision would have to be taken by a public debate between anyone who wanted to be involved, and the crowd would choose the winner.

In modern times, it means an election open to all adult citizens of a country, to choose a government and/or a leader for a fixed period of time, after which they get to choose again.

I think that's a pretty uncontroversial definition. By the way, I live in a parliamentary democracy but dislike it as a political system.

Bush's speech is nowhere close to the definition of initiating a democratic system, he's expecting people to side with him,

very interesting, being a democratic country is being in our side and what's frustrating is that most of the Arab heads nod to what he says

The definition of "democracy" is "government by the people". In its earliest and most literal sense, it meant that any decision would have to be taken by a public debate between anyone who wanted to .

i have pointed out that democracy rather than how the country is ruled and governed ( the regime system ).

however, what i highlighted from what you said was a bit remarkable, government by the people: people get involved in the government decisions right ?

now let's see the most democratic country in the world or the so called one:
Did the US involved its people when it invaded Iraq? Vietnam ? Somalia ? ummm similar decisions??!!

superbia mentioned something about equality.. isn't there some places in the US where black people or colored ones if you want so: aren't they neglected? poor living conditions, poor education and health care ??

at least we are way better in this, we have the same educational, health system in all around Oman..

sometimes i believe that we are the democratic countries while they are not

No they are democratic. But the problems you mention are because of democracy: In a democratic system, the majority votes their guy in. Even if the majority is only 50.000001%. Or worse, if some don't vote, and say there are three main candidates, then maybe only 25% will have elected the decision makers.

Even in the "perfect" democratic result where the government is chosen by the absolute (50+%) majority, it means that the minority have no say for the period of that government. At all. Also, once elected, the government only really has to worry about keeping their 51% happy to be sure of winning the next election.

That is the flaw of modern democracy - it doesn't actually give government to the majority, but it definitely denies it to any and all minorities. That's why a strong constitution is also necessary....but that at some point is also written by a majority-elected government...that might be a very small majority or no majority at all......etc.

Iraq is an excellent example of democracy gone mad: A parliamentary democracy has been cut-and-pasted into a country that had never had seriously contested elections. And to make it extra special, you have a constitution that effectively insists that all parties are in government together. So you get a parliamentary term of five years i.e. the normal Western democratic system), meaning that the people vote once in five years for someone to take all of the decisions without further popular involvement during that time. But, as an added bonus, because everyone has to be in government and agree on everything, nobody can actually get the right to make decisions and get on with government, because even if you win the election you're not allowed to be in charge. It's the worst of both worlds.

I'm not a huge fan of democracy either, but it does have some advantages:

~It tends to limit the possibility of tyranny
~It allows for some openness to decision making for those who are not part of the governing elite.

The question has to be: What alternative do you propose?

"Instead of a parliamentary democracy, I would like Britain to be ___________"

Democracy is the act of asking people's permission to do everything as a ruler or a governor.

Without religion as a guide, democracy is nothing more than slogans to be written and spoke in loud speakers with people clapping their hands for some good reason!

Democracy is a state where the people rule the people.
I think people have said this like ten times already.

I wouldn't trust my life matters to the people.

Its a dream that no one can really reach,,, Although maybe some died thinking that they did..

Theoretically, It is a form of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Abraham Lincoln's definition, but this definition could easily be tackled. First when he says "OF the people", that is a feature of government rather than a feature of democracy. A Tyranny or an Autocracy would be a government of the people too. "BY the people " ? Not really, but rather by whom the electorate vote for, and those people don't really work "FOR" the "happiness" of the people, but rather for their well-being, and even in modern politics, that already fragile idea is starting to become "shaky".

The closest thing that came to a democracy is the Athenian councils in 500 B.C., where thousands of free Athenian men used to gather in one place and each of the had a 'direct' right to speak and express a point of view, of which then everyone heard and was voted upon.

But how democratic is the closest thing to direct democracy, if Women weren't allowed to speak in these council. Not to forget considering that the Athenians were slave owners.

It's interesting, but a lot of democracy is theoretical. That's why it took America more than 250 years until it became close enough to the modern concept of Democracy, and why it took Britain more than 60 years to do the same.

^ Just read that. That sounds like rubbish.

Theoretically, It is a form of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Abraham Lincoln's definition, but this definition could easily be tackled. First when he says "OF the people", that is a feature of government rather than a feature of democracy. A Tyranny or an Autocracy would be a government of the people too. "BY the people " ? Not really, but rather by whom the electorate vote for, and those people don't really work "FOR" the "happiness" of the people, but rather for their well-being, and even in modern politics, that already fragile idea is starting to become "shaky".

The closest thing that came to a democracy is the Athenian councils in 500 B.C., where thousands of free Athenian men used to gather in one place and each of the had a 'direct' right to speak and express a point of view, of which then everyone heard and was voted upon.

But how democratic is the closest thing to direct democracy, if Women weren't allowed to speak in these council. Not to forget considering that the Athenians were slave owners.

It's interesting, but a lot of democracy is theoretical. That's why it took America more than 250 years until it became close enough to the modern concept of Democracy, and why it took Britain more than 60 years to do the same.

fair enough, as far i understood from the previous posts, democracy is almost about the government and how it's chosen and engaging its people in most of the decisions if not all. theoretically

Democracy is government by the people in which that the power of decesion goes to people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents. well i can say that democracy is a goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people!

Even a 5 year old knows what democracy is. Stop playing dumb.

sometimes we ask about something to prove it wrong ;)

i've already taken the answer unless you wana add something about it and you may put your country as an example :D

Churchill is famous for saying, "Democracy is the worst possible form of government...except for all the others."

What it brings is flexibility, the chance for multiple inputs on problems and the chance to limit the scope of corruption.

In traditional and especially smaller kinds of countries, like Oman for example, there can be an authoritarian system that is not a tyranny. But that system grew naturally from the culture itself and it remained in power largely because it did not become purely dictatorial, but saw itself as the guardian of the people. This is very different from dictators that simply seize power and keep it by murdering all their opponents.

In a modern, complex society, I just haven't seen anything that works as well as democracy, despite the fact that democracy sometimes fails, breaks down, etc. When dictators take over to "fix" things that went wrong, sooner or later they have to yield the reins to some kind of popular system again. Dictators have to spend too much time protecting their power and buttering up their friends and supporters to do what is in the interests of the country.