Dedicated to freedom-loving people

of all times and of all nations...



Democracy is one of the greatest universal values. Those who support democraticity record that in spite of all its disadvantages, democracy serves as the best opportunity for the regulation of social relations and systemic governance of the nation and the state. Those who support democraticity also emphasize the fact that democracy has become the major precondition for the regulation of international relations, as well as for the peaceful coexistence and the advancement of states.

We will only talk about the various manifestations of democracy in different periods of history in case of need. We deem it needless to touch upon the well-known truths that have been presented several times, because there are thousands of books and articles devoted to democracy.

By writing in first person plural, alongside the classic style, I wish to emphasize the active and essential participation that few of my friends have had in making this version a success. They inspired me to use the term “absolute democracy” by following the example of “absolute monarchies”, and the conditional provision for the level of democraticity was replaced by the clear expression in percentages.

Different authors present democratic systems of the 21st century and their characteristics in detail (I have published 7 more books and booklets and several dozens of articles devoted to the topic). Those systems are essentially different from one another in terms of the structure of the State, the electoral system and the ways in which the branches of government are established, but they are definitely general in terms of the representative bodies (parliaments) of the people established by the will of the people.

The notions and systems of democracy are different. Those differences are not a hindrance to having general, similar components of democracy, but they are overtly a hindrance to the development of a universal and mandatory system of democracy.

Democracy (“demos”-“cratia”) has been presented as a concept since ancient times and is as old as human civilization, but it has had different meanings in different periods of time. The differences between the meanings have first been seen in the meaning (content) of “demos” in democratic systems that have been used throughout the centuries. In our days, it seems as though there is an ultimate definition of the word “demos”. It includes everyone, irrespective of gender, religion, racial and other characteristics. Perhaps the last hindrance is people’s citizenship, without which people residing in the same territory may or may not have the right to participate, or vote for the governance in the given territory.

We believe we can aspire to reach a consensus about democracy, if we first try to specify the place of democracy in the sciences. We believe that is one of the primary issues. There is a view that democracy belongs to the field of political science. Those considering democracy as a component of jurisprudence are relatively few in number. Before presenting our approach toward this issue, let us try to specify the main meaning of the concept of democracy.

Democracy is a complex word comprised of the word “people” and “power”. Democracy means collectivity of people. In terms of the country, the main residents of that country are also called citizens. As a rule, the age limit for ruling, governing and self-governing is expressed by a citizen’s adulthood. With various emphases, different experts indicate the group of components of democracy, but they all accept the fact that the key component is the inclusivity of the collectivity (citizens of the given country) subject to democracy in state governance. In other words, the necessary and sufficient precondition for the existence of democracy is to have the citizens forming a part of the people and developing the people phenomenon to have the right to directly or indirectly participate in the governance of the lives of people. Moreover, it is very important to ensure the equal rights of the participating citizens. Based on this, could we conclude that we are first and foremost dealing with legal criteria and jurisprudence? We leave the readers to answer this question upon their discretion.

For us, it is clear that democratic is a country, the citizens of which directly or indirectly participate in state governance without any discrimination and with equal rights.




Throughout the past centuries, mankind has drawn general conclusions in relation to the key components of democracy, particularly freedom of speech, the right to vote and get elected, create associations and participate in the activities thereof, hold rallies, move freely, receive information and other rights. Nevertheless, mankind still has not been able to have a common understanding of the democratic State, even though mankind has even made an attempt to adopt a Universal Declaration on Democracy. It is accepted to consider presidential, parliamentary, semi-presidential republics and constitutional monarchies as equally democratic. Unlike other fields of science in which a specific view on the advantage of this or that system is based on certain criteria, experts in democracy, as a rule, avoid giving preference to any one of the systems of democracy.

One of the impeding factors for giving specific evaluations of a state system being more or less democratic is the respect that we show or the precaution that we take when it comes to manifesting conservatism or traditionalism, which is emphasized in terms of the democracy of nations. Frankly, we can record that in an age of velocity, democracy is the only field in which progress is not being made. People who tend to consider any technical device that is only ten years old as antediluvian, can consider even centuries-old democratic systems as systems that are modern and feasible.

It would be inappropriate to expect to find a universal democratic system that would be acceptable for all nations. As long as democracy is considered as a concept in political science and as long as its application is the monopoly of political figures, it is hopeless to expect a major change. The fact of the matter is that politicians are mainly concerned about ruling and taking advantage of power. In both cases they are first and foremost interested in efficiency and their comfort. Only when democracy will be perceived as a legal concept that precisely ensures the equal rights of citizens will we be able to expect to see the development of the notions of democracy and the development of democracy.

Today, it is quite common to acknowledge, better yet, promote the right of a nation to have its own democracy. This can also be seen in international documents, particularly the Universal Declaration on Democracy in which it is stated that each nation shall have the right to determine its type of democracy. Moreover, different types of democracies (presidential republic, constitutional monarchy, parliamentary republic, European type, Latin American type, etc.) are well-known and are presented as exemplary and equivalent versions of democratic systems. Many facts and circumstances are cited when comparing those types of systems of democracy with each other, but the main provisions for the equal participation of citizens in elections and in state governance thereby are not considered as primary.


Years ago we placed into circulation a formula that was called for showing the level of democraticity of a state system in figures. The formula was not directly imposing different nations to adopt a unified state system, but was providing the opportunity to specify the percentage of democraticity of a state system of every country. The formula also provided the opportunity to specify the reasons why the state system of one country was more democratic or less democratic than the state system of another country. The formula made it easy to see the indicators and the coefficients for the differences. After that, it would be upon the discretion of competent institutions of the nation (constitutional courts and parliaments, lawyers and politicians) to raise the level of democraticity of the state system or not. For instance, this can refer to the frequency of elections, the representativeness of parliament and the way in which the government is formed.

We believe this would be the most efficient way of minimizing discrepancies over democracy and reaching a consensus. It would no longer be necessary to present evidence and justifications for the advantage and appropriateness of this or that system, or the preference of this or that state system for any reason. If democracy is the objective and democraticity is the main attribute, then there should be a common criterion.

This is the only way that we can tactfully show nations considering themselves as nations with centuries-old traditions of democracy the deviations of their respective state systems from real democracy.

If we made an attempt to simply hint politicians of Great Britain that their state system is far from being democratic, they might take it hard. They have been living in that system for centuries, and that system has become their essence. However, there are no explanations about the formula for democraticity. It simply helps one see the real situation and the comparative situation and take the decision to move toward perfection. It is actually not as much about moving toward perfection as much as it is about rejecting imperfection.

Later we will touch upon the fact that in many democratic countries, parliamentary systems simply contradict the principle of equal rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. The parliament is not the body that represents all the citizens having participated in the elections, but the body that represents all citizens who have won in the elections. This contradiction is an infringement upon the basis of all bases of constitutionality, that is, the equal rights of citizens.

Our proposed formula would help us see all the flaws from the angle of human rights and, for instance, it would help societies that are used to the majoritarian electoral system, make the transition to the majoritarian electoral system in which there will be many mandates. That would help the frontrunners and the other candidates elected by citizens make it to the parliament through elections. In that case, most of the candidates elected by citizens having the disposition to participate in state governance would be in parliament. The citizens having participated in the elections would be able to exercise their right to participate in an important process in their lives, without the feeling of not having garnered enough votes in their respective areas.  In this situation, the conventional British politician may feel disposed to make a change in the British parliamentary system and make the transition to a system in which the conventional majoritarian (maximum) electoral system is preserved on the one hand, and makes the British parliament a truly representative parliament on the other, meaning a body that represents the citizens who participated in the elections and not a body that represents the citizens who received relatively fewer votes in the elections.

Before touching upon the formula that I mentioned above, I believe it would be right to touch upon the most important component of democracy, that is, the characteristics of the formation of parliamentary systems.


Democratic are countries in which the people have a representative body that in some way participates in state governance. As a rule, the main function of representative bodies (parliaments) is to make laws. That is why even in cases when the formation of government is within the parliament’s competence the parliament is considered as a legislative body.

Out of the three fundamental branches of government, the legislative branch is viewed as the key component of democracy. No other institution is compared to a democratic institution as much as the parliament. That is probably the reason why the term “parliamentarism” is used as a synonym of democracy.

The representative bodies of the world that serve as democratic bodies are essentially different from each other in terms of the way in which they are established. Years ago when we still had not placed into circulation the concept of the representativeness of citizens, and the idea of the percentage of representativeness of parliaments had not been defined, we would simply make simple comparisons and propose to consider the proportional electoral system as preferable for democratic countries, in contrast to the majoritarian electoral system. We would refer to the fact that in the case of the majoritarian electoral system, the unannounced threshold could have been a threshold exceeding 50 percent. For comparison, it would be emphasized that in the case of a proportional electoral system, it would, as a rule, not be more than 7 percent. However, even in the case of a 5 percent or 7 percent threshold, the same proportional electoral system could theoretically create very unacceptable situations in terms of representativeness. For instance, if 14 political parties participated in the parliamentary elections with a 7 percent threshold, and 13 of those political parties received up to 6.9 percent of the votes and only one received 11 percent of the votes, in spite of the presence of the multi-party proportional system, the parliament would have been composed of representatives of one political party. This means that the proportional, which many consider as preferable, could theoretically lead to a situation in which pluralism would be ruled out.

If politicians and the lawyers of their country are guided by the objective to facilitate governance, as a rule, they do that by applying different types of thresholds in parliaments in order to minimize the representativeness of citizens. They are interested in the efficiency of governance and are not concerned about the main attribute of the parliament, which is reducing representativeness to a minimum.

When evaluating a thought or idea, we should never deviate from the content of the word that expresses that particular thought or idea. If the parliament is a representative body of the citizens, then the parliamentary system that ensures maximum representativeness should be considered as preferable. The system of formation of that body should be a system that rules out the distortion of the representativeness of citizens in even extreme situations. Any goal or consideration should not minimize the representativeness of a representative body.

There are two main parliamentary systems in the world today, including the proportional, which is sometimes also called the multi-party electoral system (with the percentage threshold or without it) and majoritarian electoral system (in our previous works we referred to it as maximum). One of the options of the latter is the electoral system called absolute majoritarian. In the case of the majoritarian electoral system, the candidate elected from the precinct is the candidate who has garnered the maximum number of votes, meaning he or she has garnered relatively more votes than the other candidates. In political science, that electoral system is called the “winner takes it all” (WTA) electoral system. The absolute majoritarian electoral system is the system in which the candidate garnering more than half of the votes in the first or second stage is considered as a candidate elected in the given precinct.

From the legal angle, the majoritarian electoral system is defective. If a citizen in any country appeals to the court, he or she can easily prove that it is an electoral system in which citizens’ equal rights are violated. It violates their decisive right to participate in state governance, and it is a violation in terms of democracy.

The U.S. House of Representatives, which plays a huge role in the national and political life of the United States of America, is elected through the majoritarian electoral system. The system was adopted more than 200 years ago and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The institution is called the House of Representatives. It is not referred to as a representative chamber of citizens who won or win in the elections or citizens at a more advantage than other citizens, but simply the House of Representatives. However, in reality, it is the representative body of citizens having won in different precincts across the United States. It is considered that the citizens having lost in different precincts are represented by representatives who have become Congressmen based on the votes of those citizens who won. No matter how hard we try, it’s hard to imagine that any Congressman elected as a Democrat can truly express the positions of Republican citizens.

This is an artificial way of thinking that alienates the parliamentarian from the electoral mass, because even though the citizen didn’t elect that specific parliamentarian (Congressman), he or she is persuaded or obliged to recognize the parliamentarian as the citizen’s representative. That representative is also aware of the fact that most of the citizens have voted for the candidate that was an opponent or did not make it to Congress, but the representative will feel like a representative of those who don’t accept him or her. This leads to the creation of an artificial mindset, which eventually leads to the lack of confidence in the parliamentarians-something that is considered as one of the major challenges facing democracy today.

In a high political culture, the inadequacies of situations may not be clearly expressed, but in newly forming democracies it may even go against the system of democratic values and make people express their disappointment with democracy.

There are two paths for the functioning of democracy. One of them may be referred to as the traditional-reformative path, and the other may be referred to as the scientific-radical path. The nature of the first is expressed in a way that the theoretically applied traditions, including the state system, meet the demands of the new times. This has turned several absolute monarchies into constitutional monarchies over time. In those monarchies, the state system was synchronized with human rights, that is, people’s right to participate in state governance, and was harmonized with that right. The second is described by the way it was created and by its principles. It is based on theory, as well as the achievements in political science and jurisprudence. A legislative field is created on the basis thereof, which contributes to the development of a new culture of democracy.

Based on the current state of democracy, today, countries with a high culture of democracy and countries that are beginning democracies need to reconsider the issue, based on the way they perceive the law.


Years ago when we were preparing to place into circulation the formula for measuring democraticity, we expressed the conviction that it is impossible to turn the desire of having an absolute representative body of the people into a reality, but much to our surprise, we found the solution in just two to three years. It turned out that what seemed impossible can be the simplest and most feasible today.

When speaking of parliamentary electoral systems, we must draw our readers’ attention to something that seriously helped deeply and completely perceive the idea of the participation of citizens in the country’s governance with equal rights. The basis is that if the parliament is a representative body of citizens, then we must have the opportunity to measure that representativeness. By taking that path, we were able to find a way to measure the representativeness of parliaments and, as a result, we were able to show the level of representativeness in figures.

For instance, if the parliamentarian is elected by 10,000 voters in the majoritarian parliamentary system, then each of the 10,000 citizens who voted for that particular parliamentarian has 1 vote, divided by 10,000 (1/10,000) votes for parliament. The equality of citizens requires that the number of votes of all parliamentarians be equal. Only in that case can citizens be equally represented, that is, be equally represented in parliament.

Let’s view the issue in another way. Let’s say there are 20,000 citizens with the right to vote in both Precincts A and B, but only 18,000 citizens have participated in the elections. The deputy from Precinct A garnered 12,000 votes, while the deputy from Precinct B garnered 6,000 votes. Today, deputies of parliaments around the world vote once. Each of the citizens with a deputy from Precinct A is represented by 1/12,000 votes, and each of the citizens from Precinct B has 1/6,000 votes. It turns out that the citizens from Precinct A have representativeness that is two times less than that of the citizens from Precinct B because 1/12,000 is two times less than 1/6,000. If we try to compare it with the representativeness (0/6,000 or 0/12,000) of citizens whose candidates did not make it to parliament at all, we’ll notice that we’re dealing with an overtly inadmissible violation of rights. Citizens must have equal rights, but the structural imperfection in the representative body enshrined by law (sometimes also by the Constitution) violates their right to that.

The Constitution of any country does not subordinate the equal rights of people to those of deputies. On the contrary, almost all Constitutions are about citizens’ equal rights, but from those same Constitutions derives the fact that parliamentarians, irrespective of the number of voters they had, must vote equally in parliament, meaning they have equal rights. In a majoritarian electoral system in which parliamentarians can vote for different people, it is defined as a rule that the precincts of all deputies (number of citizens at the precincts) must be equal to or not very different from each other. The elected parliamentarians are the representatives of those precincts. Therefore, there should not be a big difference between the precincts. However, the number of votes the parliamentarians from those precincts with an equal number of residents and the parliamentarians with one vote each receive is overlooked. For instance, in the United States of America, the candidate having received 80,000 votes and the candidate having received 320,000 votes may become a Congressman. They each have one vote and the representativeness of the citizens who voted for them have four times less representativeness when compared to each other.

Guided by the coefficient for representativeness of citizens, which means dividing the one vote of the parliamentarian by the number of votes of citizens by which that parliamentarian has been elected, we see that in one case, the coefficient for the citizen’s representativeness is equivalent to 1 divided by 80,000, and in the other case-1 divided by 320,000. It’s clear that this is a violation of the irrefutable principle of equal rights of citizens, which is enshrined in the Constitution and in several international documents. Those equal rights must be manifested, especially when it comes to the right of citizens to participate in the country’s governance, because that is the sphere through which the other rights of citizens are regulated.

Thus, the parliaments of Great Britain, the United States of America, France and the parliaments formed through other majoritarian electoral systems that have become the representative bodies of victorious citizens are anti-constitutional systems that radicalize discrimination.

In our days, when speaking of equal rights of citizens, experts in democracy say they are content with seeing citizens’ rights be equal on the day of the vote and to see that each person votes once. However, no Constitution states that the citizens’ rights must only be equal on the day of election. Citizens must always have equal rights, and their intermediary structures must in no way violate the equal rights of citizens. This is the principal question that served as a basis for finding absolute representative bodies.


We believe the time has come to declare that, in essence, we haven’t discovered anything. We have simply recapped well-known provisions in civil law, economic law and electoral law.

When speaking of the provisions in economic law, we mean that citizens don’t show up to the elections with ballots, but their share in governance. Each citizen has a share in the country (country’s governance), and an election is an event during which citizens transfer their shares in the country’s governance to their proxies or to the association that has engaged that proxy. In his or her turn, the intermediary-representative-parliamentarian votes during the parliamentary elections according to the amount of shares that the citizens have given him or her to participate in the country’s governance, just like shareholders or their plenipotentiary representatives vote at the general meetings of shareholding companies. Thus, the citizen participates in the general meetings of the “State shareholding company”.

There is also another option-a referendum where the citizen independently uses his or her share to participate in the country’s governance. It is directly democracy. During the referendum, people independently possess their shares (ballots).

It’s very important to make sure that no shareholder is deprived of the right to vote during the implementation of that provision in economic law and that all shares are counted.

Now, let’s see what is offered for the votes of citizens whose candidates received few votes in the reformed, multi-mandate majoritarian electoral system or in the reformed proportional electoral system based on ratings and didn’t make it to the parliament. We get the solution from the provisions of civil law, according to which people could have acted on their behalf and could have granted authorization to transfer that right again. Hence, the candidate who didn’t succeed in the elections has the right to or can (morally speaking, is also obliged to) readdress his or her votes to any one of the candidates who succeeded in those elections. It is assumed that this should be done within a week following the announcement of the results of the elections and official submission of the lists of the elected candidates. Just like a citizen has the chance to vote, the failed candidate must also have the chance to vote-something that is ruled out in the precincts where there is only one mandate.

The conclusion is that the world’s first demand must be to have the majoritarian (also absolute majoritarian) one-mandate system and to have the slogan “The winner takes it all” , which has become a working style and derives from that system, be declared anti-constitutional and a system that sets restrictions on human rights. We should not be afraid of demanding that the majoritarian system be recognized as unlawful. Great Britain, the United States, France and many other countries that are considered as the citadel of democracy and are using that system, must quickly relieve themselves of that system, making the transition to a multi-mandate (at least two-mandate) or proportional (or at least proportional without the percentage threshold) electoral system based on ratings.


The two-mandate majoritarian electoral system should be more familiar to nations that are used to the one-mandate majoritarian electoral system since the multi-mandate system has been refined to become the one-mandate majoritarian electoral system that has been refined throughout decades, better yet, centuries. Conventional citizens won’t consider the transition as a revolutionary transition because the precincts used during the use of the majoritarian electoral system will be maintained. They will simply be joined in accordance with two, three and several other mandates. Thus, we see that the increase of the number of multi-mandate majoritarian mandates will eliminate or will minimize the differences between the majoritarian and proportional electoral systems.

In a two-mandate electoral system, two neighboring precincts are joined together, and two parliamentarians may be elected from that joint precinct. If, for instance, 40 parliamentarians are elected in one of the States of the United States of America, the number 40 is maintained, but the number of precincts is not 40, but 20, and 2 people are elected from each precinct.

In the precincts of countries supporting the multi-mandate (electing two or more parliamentarians from one precinct) electoral system, those who are the frontrunners and the candidates with the number of mandates for parliamentarians in the given precinct are considered as the winners in the elections. The other candidates, irrespective of how many they are in number, have the right to transfer their votes to whomever of the candidates. This should be done in a reasonable timeframe. Within one week (maximum ten days), the former candidates must announce and submit to the electoral commission the name of the person whom they would like to transfer their votes to. Thus, the people (voters) determine which of the candidates in their precinct will become a parliamentarian, and only after that are the other candidates provided with the opportunity to transfer their votes to the successful candidates based on the pledges that they had made during the election campaign, or upon their discretion.

The internationally recognized provision by which parliamentarians have one vote is maintained only when regulating the activities within parliament, such as when the speaker of the parliament or the head of any committee is being elected. In that case, the parliamentarians only represent themselves (not the citizens who voted for them) and truly act as members of the joint structure with equal rights. However, when a parliamentarian acts as the representative of the citizens, he or she must vote according to the amount of votes that he or she has received or according to the amount of votes that have been transferred to him or her. In that regard, modern technologies are more than enough.


For the record, it should be mentioned that even though the proportional electoral system is considered as more representative than the majoritarian electoral system, and it actually is, neither the parliament elected through the proportional electoral system nor the parliament elected through the majoritarian electoral system is the representative body of all citizens having participated in the elections. During elections held through the proportional electoral system, some political forces also may not be represented in parliament due to the fact that they have not received a sufficient number of votes. As a result, they won’t be represented in parliament, and the citizens who voted for those forces also won’t be represented within the representative body. However, the main approach is to have almost all citizens having participated in the elections, have the opportunity to be represented within the representative body. That is the major condition for absolute democracies. Based on that, the countries having adopted the proportional electoral system are also asked to adopt the working style of transferring the votes of electoral units not represented in parliament to those who are represented in parliament, which means readdressing the votes that have been received.

Let us note that the proportional electoral system based on ratings, which is already applied in some countries and combines the American primaries with the final process of elections, is the best out of all the options of a proportional electoral system. The main reason why it is preferable is because determining the sequence of persons included in the electoral units and nominated by the proportional list, as well as determining the sequence of their names on the list is reserved to the citizens. The political party or electoral unit submits a pre-election list, but that is just a preliminary list. During the vote, voters have the right to vote for a political party, indicating which candidate on the list of that particular political party is preferable. By voting for that candidate, they provide electoral commissions with the opportunity to reclassify the electoral list submitted by the electoral units, according to the quantitative advantage of the votes that have been received. If a citizen votes for a political party, it means that he or she is not against the sequence of the political party in the electoral list. Those types of votes are equally distributed to all parliamentarians.

If only 6 out of the 20 people on the list submitted by the electoral unit make it to the parliament, then the candidates on that list having garnered votes in the next spots, officially transfer their votes to the candidates of their political parties that have become parliamentarians. In special cases, they may transfer their votes to the parliamentarians of other political parties upon their discretion. That is not very likely, but nothing can be ruled out, because if citizens have voted for the specific person, then those citizens have entrusted that person to possess the right to their votes.


The votes of the candidates who were defeated in the elections held in the majoritarian and proportional electoral systems must be transferred to the persons who became parliamentarians in the short period prescribed by the relevant law of the given country. The votes may also be transferred to the electoral unit, that is, the political party. This means that those votes must be equally distributed among the candidates that have become parliamentarians.

Let’s suppose the former candidate received 600 votes, and only 6 people from his or her team became parliamentarians. If the candidate transfers his or her votes to the political party, then 6 parliamentarians of the political party each receive 100 votes. As a result, none of the citizens having participated in the elections will be left out of parliament.

During votes in parliament held through the proportional electoral system, parliamentarians also vote according to the number of votes that they have received, but if they don’t have any disagreements on the issue that is being discussed, then the representative of the political party’s faction may vote according to the total number of votes that the party has received.

These systems must be adopted by accepting the concept of a substituting parliamentarian. Starting from the moment of assumption of office, all parliamentarians must present their substitutes. The substituting parliamentarian assumes the office of parliamentarian when the latter is no longer capable of working. Until then, the substituting parliamentarian has no competence or authorization. Starting from the moment of becoming a parliamentarian, he or she is granted the right to participate in the parliament’s activities and vote as much as the parliamentarian he or she is substituting used to vote. The person having assumed the powers of a parliamentarian is obliged to present the substituting parliamentarian at once.

There are also other electoral systems that are not at any advantage from the angle of representativeness. We are not going to address them, because choosing any one of the two main options will solve the most important issue, and that is to make representative bodies become absolutely representative.

(By the way, when speaking of parliaments formed through mixed parliamentary systems, we must sum up our results separately for the majoritarian and proportional electoral systems respectively, and then have an overall picture of how much the mixed parliament represents the citizens in percentages by seeing the relationship between those percentages and the unit that shows that relationship).


In parliamentary States, the function of forming a government is reserved to the parliament. In relation to that, with the justification to avoid governmental crises, many countries set a percentage threshold. This minimizes the representativeness (democracy) of parliaments. As a result, parliaments have a greater desire to raise the level of efficiency of governance or minimize the possibility of a governmental crisis by pressuring relative ethnic minorities and making them less important for a certain period of time. This kind of an approach may only be used in societies where there is a consensus to subordinate democracy under governability. Therefore, we deal with a society whose objective is not to ensure democracy, but to ensure governability.

Can we really consider the restriction on the representativeness of a people for the sake of governability as justified in a society that considers democracy as a supreme value? Is raising the level of governability a primary issue? The word “democracy” itself reminds one that the tendency to minimize the word “demos” from that word may help any dictator turn his greatest dream into a reality. The only part that remains will be the part of ruling and governing. Of course, this has nothing to do with democracy.

When we say “parliamentary systems”, we mean the electoral system and working order of a parliament. If they are not generally linked to each other, then as we enshrine the model of absolute democracy, we will see that there is a need to see those two independent terms combined.

Here we must mention once again that the systemic approach has been and remains in the center of our attention. Individual phenomena such as electoral violations, falsifications, double votes, motivating voters materially, adding voters to lists and other phenomena must be regulated through other means, even through the intervention of law-enforcement and national security officers. Our goal is to present the ways of avoiding the imperfections of the system. As in all spheres, a clear, systemic (strategic) approach ensures radical progress when it comes to democracy as well.


Now let’s touch upon a very important issue for democracy, that is, the issue of frequent participation of people in government. The term “democracy” contains no periodic element. Moreover, it is permanent and unrestricted. However, there are periodical restrictions on people’s participation in a country’s governance. Simple democratic actions (rallies) are organized in case of need, and the elections for bodies with mediated participation (parliaments) and other elected institutions are carried out throughout certain periods of time.

The importance of holding elections for democracy throughout certain periods of time is emphasized in all international documents related to democracy. Some experts also emphasize the frequency of elections, but few (so few that I can’t refer to anyone) see a direct relationship between the level of democracy and the frequency of electoral processes. However, it’s suffice to return to the meaning of the word “democracy”, that is, the people’s participation in a country’s governance through the bodies established by means of elections, in order to guess that the frequency of elections is directly compared with the level of democracy. In other words, thanks to the elections of the U.S. Congress or House of Representatives held once every two years, democracy in that country is two and even two and a half times more than in the Republic of Armenia where parliamentary elections are held once every five years.

In fact, prior to the constitutional “reforms” in 2005, parliamentary elections in Armenia were held once every four years. As a person who undertook the initiative of constitutional reform and as chairman of the commission on constitutional reforms, I suggested increasing the frequency of parliamentary elections, making it at least once every three years, if not two years like in the United States of America. Like other countries, Armenia also has forces that are not democratic in essence and are against the participation of people in political processes, are horrified by elections and, “due to the tension caused by elections”, are even ready to reject the institute of elections. Those kinds of people and forces ruled Armenia in the late 20th century. First, they told their stooges about my initiative and then reduced the frequency of parliamentary elections (by a quarter) and the elections for local self-government (by a third). As a result, the level of democracy in the state system of Armenia, which already lacks the culture and traditions of democracy, was reduced by nearly 30 percent.

Without stating figures, it is clear that if we look at the issue from the angle of democracy, democracy is effective when the people participate in the process as frequently as possible. If in the case of direct democracy (example of Switzerland) they are rallies, in mediated democracy they are the intermediary structures. Since a citizen’s attitude toward this or that issue may change even in the case of participation under the influence of circumstances or after gaining experience, it’s important for the people to make progress and to adopt a new direction through new elections. As mentioned above, experts in democracy always emphasize the importance of periodic elections. This will lead us to the same conclusion. If frequency is helpful, then greater frequency, meaning more frequent elections, will unquestionably be more helpful from the angle of raising the level of democraticity.

In our formula there is also a coefficient that is related to the frequency of elections. With that coefficient, there is a certain evaluation of the country’s democraticity, depending on the frequency of parliamentary (and not only parliamentary) elections. In the initial version of the formula it was defined that that unit for parliamentary elections held once every 3 years would be 1, 1.3 for parliamentary elections held once every 2 years, 0.8 for parliamentary elections held once every 4 years. This means that the number that we get when estimating the level of democracy of the given country is also multiplied by this coefficient. Currently, we hope the maximum coefficient will be 1 in the final version.

As for the provision on calling parliamentarians back, the increase in frequency of elections will eliminate the need for that.

The need for increasing frequency refers to the formation of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Summing up, let’s underline the fact that guaranteeing 100% representativeness of citizens participating in elections and the frequency of elections are very important for the democraticity of a parliamentary system.


The concept of head of state is used in many countries around the world. It is either the post of a monarch that is passed on by inheritance in constitutional monarchies, or a post that is widely popular in parliamentary or semi-parliamentary/semi-presidential States, the office of president elected by the people. In presidential states like the United States of America, Latin American and other countries, the head of government is elected and is the same as the primary figure of the country, but there is no concept of head of state in countries across Europe. In presidential states the government is formed through periodic elections held by the will of the people.

The election of a head of state is held by different frequencies in different countries, but the trend to minimize the period, which is the same as increasing the frequency of elections, can be seen, except for Russia and several other countries. For instance, after long discussions and as a result of a referendum, the French presidential elections are now held once every 5 years instead of the previous 7.

In our formula, the coefficient for the level of democracy in states without the election of a head of government is multiplied by 0.5. This means that the level of democracy in that country is exactly two times less. If the head of government is not elected by the people, the participation of people (democracy) is reduced. Mediated election means the passing of the opportunity of a people to elect a head to the mediators guided by their own considerations. If in the case of the USA those mediating voters are elected by the people to elect the head of government and only for that purpose, in parliamentary republics the government is elected by the representatives of the legislative branch of government, which is a counterbalance to the government.

It’s a counterbalance to dream of! The head of the institution called for counterbalancing the parliament is not elected by the people, but by the parliament of political figures who have become parliamentarians with their pretentions and considerations (and rarely with a love for democracy).

When electing the head of government, citizens must directly and indirectly indicate the person whom they prefer. Unlike the representative body of the people, the head of government does not have to present everyone. He or she becomes the president or prime minister of everyone, but in any case, he or she is the head of government that is subject to the control of the representative body elected by everyone. It is the government that is granted the competence to implement certain functions, and since those actions may sometimes not correspond to the desires of all layers of the people, all layers of the people carry out control in the sense that their rights are not violated, but the main direction is determined by the number of people who have an advantage during the election of the government. Figuratively speaking, a large carriage needs a horseman to keep the reins in his hands, and the passengers in the carriage can choose certain people to control the actions of the cabby.

It is the mission of the government to manage the executive branch of government, but under the conditions of the elected representative counterbalance, that is, the parliament. In its turn, the government counterbalances the legislature.

During long discord, the representative body becomes supremacy with 2/3 of votes. This ratio revealed in the United States of America 200 years ago is mathematically correct, because if the simple majority in parliament can be less than the votes that the president has received, then, as a rule, 2/3 of the votes for parliament will exceed the votes that the president received. So, the approach that the threshold of the head of government elected by the people can be exceeded by 2/3 of the votes of the parliament (representative body) is appropriate.

In our formula, the election of the head of government and the frequency of that election are considered as the most important characteristics of democracy, and they increase or decrease the level of total democracy in the country.


There is no estimable and mathematically expressive form of democraticity of the judicial branch of government. Participation of the people (citizens) in the formation and implementation of functions (justice) of the judiciary is considered as important in this or that way. The judges of the second instance court endowed with the competence to reexamine the decisions of first instance courts may be elected. The existence and activities of the institute of the jury is also a manifestation of people’s participation (democraticity). The presence of one of these two factors can already be considered as sufficient for a judicial system to be relatively democratic. We must accept the fact that the lack of the role of people in countries will also have an impact on the level of democraticity of the given country.

Thus, only countries with a judicial system replenished with appointed judges can obviously be considered as less democratic than countries where judges are elected. The presence of the institute of jury can also be considered as one of the manifestations of democraticity. Based on that, in the formula the coefficient for the democraticity of a judicial system has the same value as that of the higher courts or the jury institute or in the presence of both of them at the same time. This means that the judicial system may also be considered as democratic when it comes to appointed judges, under the condition that the jury institute functions.


The local self-government (LS) system is also one of the important factors of the democraticity of a State. The existence of the LS system in the form of elected structures raises the level of democracy in the given country. The absence of elected local self-government bodies obviously reduces the level of democracy, and this is expressed through certain coefficients in the formula.

The counterbalance between the branches of government at the level of the LS can also be to the benefit of democracy, but since it refers to the State in general, we are only limited to enshrining the idea of selectivity. Of course, the LS system in which the LS representative bodies (council of elders) are an independent structure is a more democratic system. This means that those bodies are elected through elections held by the residents of the given community and parallel to the head of the community elected by the residents of that same community, and they have a leader that they choose by counterbalancing the head of the community and working independently. In its turn, the executive body of the community must work independently, but its activities must run parallel to the activities of the representative body of the community confirming the expenses made by the community.

The frequency of elections is also important from the angle of democracy in the LS system. In all societies in which there is fear of frequent elections, the phenomenon of election is not perceived as a day to manifest and exercise the human right to participate in the governance of the country or community. Avoiding frequent elections goes to show that the culture of getting elected and participating in political life through elections is still underdeveloped in the particular environment. It also goes to show the supremacy of the defective state of mind of possessing the levers of government at all costs and being hostile to take the levers away from others.

As a rule, those who support reducing the frequency of the elections of parliaments, presidents (prime ministers) and communities justify their views with the desire to avoid “further tension” and to ensure stability. The people who sincerely believe in that approach should simply be reminded of the fact that whether they like it or not, they are supporting the eradication of elections, as well as the low quality people disposed to replace democracy with elections.


When we released the formula for the democraticity of States in 2003, we mentioned that unfortunately, that formula is not applicable for federal States. We took into consideration the fact that federal States generally have 2 representative bodies, one of which is represented by the citizens, and the other is represented by the federation’s subjects, including states, autonomous republics, or in the case of the USA, the States. With the example of the USA, none of the States can have a population of 40 million, while the other has a population of 2 million, but they are both equally represented by the same number of delegates in the Senate. Whereas the assurance of the representativeness of citizens was considered as important for the representative body of citizens, in the representative body of federal subjects of the federal State, the equal rights of federal subjects of the federal State are guaranteed. With those main guidelines, it seems impossible to draw parallels between the equal rights of federal subjects and the equal rights of people (citizens). Bringing up the example of the USA again, the equal rights of the States are expressed through the representation of 2 Senators from each State. It seemed as though the focus on the basis of civil rights (equal rights) within that structure was inappropriate. However, six years later in 2009, we were able to find a way to present the essence of representative bodies of federal subjects in federal countries from the angle of human rights, without violating the principle of equal rights of federal subjects.

We present the solution by bringing up the example of the USA once again. In the elections of the federal representative body (the Senate), two representatives from each federal subject (State) are elected by the people of the particular States, but the votes distributed among the candidates are not distributed according to the number of votes, but according to the ratio in percentages. If there are eight candidates for two Senators, and if the sequence is A-8, B-7, C-5, D-4, E-3, F-2, G-2 and H-1 million votes, then the Senators representing the States become Candidates A and B with 8 million votes and 7 million votes, respectively. In a reasonable timeframe following the announcement of the results, the failed candidates transfer their votes to the candidates who have become Senators. As a result, A has, for example, 8+5+3+2=18 million votes, while B has 7+4+2_1=14 million votes. According to the ratio, A has 56.25% of the votes of the given State, and B has 43.75% of the votes.

In the representative body of federal subjects (Senate), every State is not represented by two Senators, but by 100 percent of the votes from the State. After accepting this approach and enshrining it by the Constitution and laws, in the elections for Senate the Senator does not vote with only one vote (vote of a Senator), but according to percentage of votes that he or she has received from his or her State and the votes that have been transferred to him or her. In other words, the above mentioned Senator A participates in the elections with 56.25 points, and Senator B participates with 46.75 points. The same goes for Senators elected in all the other States. In that case, the Senator will not have 100 votes, but 5,000 percent or points. This system might create an incomprehensible situation at first sight, but only at first sight. For instance, during the vote, the number of Senators (let’s suppose 40) having ensured the 2,501 points (percentage) of votes is less than the number of Senators with 2,499 percent (points) (let’s suppose 60). This will affirm that even when decisions are made at the level of the representative body of federal subjects (Senate) of that federal country, importance is attached to the positions of the citizens, and Senators are simply the citizens’ representatives that are intermediaries.

In 2010, the coefficient for representativeness of the representative bodies of federal subjects in federal countries was also included in our proposed Formula for Democraticity of States.

After finding this solution, we may consider the work aimed at finding solutions to the challenges facing democracy hinged on human rights complete. We don’t intend to consider this formula as perfect, but we have no doubt that it is one of the successful attempts that will lead to absolute democracy.


The formula for the democraticity of States is the following:


                     PSD = (--- x F) x (E x F) x J x L x (U x F) x 100%


PSD: The percentage of the States’ Democraticity

R: Number of citizens having participated in the parliamentary elections and with a representative in parliament following the announcement of the results

V: Number of citizens having participated in the elections

F: The coefficient for frequency of parliamentary (and other) elections. It changes, depending on the frequency of elections. If elections are held once every 2 years, then F=1; if elections are held once every 3 years, then F=0.9; if elections are held once every 4 years, then F=0.8; if elections are held once every 5 years, then F=0.7, and if parliamentary (and other) elections are held once every 6 years, then F=0.6.

E: The coefficient-indicator for the election or appointment of government. If the head of government is appointed by the parliament, then E=0.5; if the head of the government is elected by the people, then E=1.

In this case (E x F), F is the coefficient for the frequency of elections for head of government elected by the people. It is equal to 1, if the head of government is appointed by the parliament, meaning E=0.5, as well as in the case when the elections for the president with the competence to appoint the head of government or prime minister are held once every 2 years. It also changes in the case of frequency of parliamentary elections, depending on the frequency of elections. If the elections are held once every 3 years, then F=0.9; if the elections are held once every 4 years, then F=0.8; if the elections are held once every 5 years, then F=0.7, and if the government is elected once every 6 years, then F=0.6.

J: The coefficient for the judicial system. If the judges of the second instance court are appointed, then J=0.8. If they are elected by the people, or if there is a system of the jury, then J=1.

L: The coefficient for local self-government bodies. If community elections are held once every 2 years, then L=1; if they are held once every 3 years, then L=0.9; if they are held once every 4 years, then L=0.8; if they are held once every 5 years, then L=0.7.

U: The indicator for a federal or unitary State. If the formula is applied to specify the percentage of democraticity of a unitary state, then U and F are equal to 1. If the level of democracy of a federal State is specified, then U may have a different value, depending on the principle by which the deputies elected from among the federal subjects are elected within the federal representative body and by which they vote. U is equal to 1, if the deputies within the federal representative body proportionally represent the population of the territory of the federal subject (State). For instance, if the deputy or parliamentary group elected as a representative of the state has garnered 40%, then the deputy or parliamentary group participates in the votes in the Senate according to that percentage. U is equal to 0.7, if the federal structures are equally represented, but the proportionality of the citizens having acted during the elections within the structure subject to their federation is not taken into account.

This formula presents the democraticity of States in percentages, and that’s why the 100% was added at the end.

Summing up the completed activities and underlining the fact that the coefficients in the study released in 2003 were different, we deem it necessary to mention that in order to simplify the formula, the coefficient for frequencies in the parliamentary elections, as well as in the elections for president and prime minister, have not changed. We have considered it as appropriate to identify the different frequency coefficients referred to in the articles and speeches that we have published and given since 2003.

There can be other effective proposals for the Democraticity Formula, but we believe the most important thing is to have one unit for measuring democraticity, that is, a common criterion. Through the common criterion, democraticity ceases to exist as an abstract concept.

This formula serves as a way of measuring the level of democraticity of the given State and specifying and clarifying the flaws that make the state system less democratic than it could be. After that, it will depend on the preference or considerations of the given State to decide to move closer to 100% democraticity by eliminating the flaws, or to be content with what the State has.

We hope our dear reader understands that this doesn’t refer to democracy in general, but to the systems of democracy and the possibility of enshrining democracy by law.

The formula provides the opportunity to apply separate parts of the formula for the systems of different branches of government.

As it appears, there is no frequency coefficient mentioned in the judiciary sector, and one of the reasons for that is to reduce the judges’ dependence on citizens to a minimum. The judge (of the court) must be elected by citizens, but must be independent. He or she must never feel dependent on even the person who appointed him or her, even if it is the people.


The respect for human rights has led to the formation of the concept of democracy and its practice. In its turn, the functioning of democracy has served as an impetus for further expansion and advancement of human rights.

The fights between tribes and races, religions and nations, class systems and cultures for world views are not the only thing that is part of the development of civilization. Alongside all that and within that, there has always been a battle between two human attributes as a primary attribute. One of them is the type of people who consider themselves as privileged and are ready to commit all types of crimes for that notion, which is useless. The other is the type of people who consider themselves as equal before God and are ready to fight for equal rights. The extremely slow, but consistent efforts to radicalize equality of rights are what have led civilization to the level of considering man and his rights as a supreme value. On that path, the gradual development of democracy has been a primary factor in terms of the system. The adoption of a system of absolute democracy on the part of modern civilization will be the most essential contribution to the success of people who are the moving force of civilization and people who aspire for equal rights.

The following are the issues and challenges facing democracy in the beginning of the 21st century:

(A) lack of citizens’ confidence in political processes, the authorities and politicians;

(B) lack of interest in democratic processes.


The application of the above mentioned approaches will increase the role of citizens and will make them believe in the importance of their participation more, especially if politicians in the parliamentary systems are viewed as simply the subsequent representatives of citizens. Citizens will play the major role in the relations between the State and the people.

This will all take place first and foremost

(a) by making the presence of citizens within representative bodies objective and

(b) by increasing the frequency of citizens’ participation in political processes.

© 2015 Demos. All Rights Reserved. Designed By Arpi Studio