A kleroterion was a randomization device used by the Athenian polis during the period of democracy to select citizens to the boule, to most state offices, to the nomothetai, to court juries. The kleroterion was a slab of stone incised with an attached tube. Citizens' tokens—pinakia—were placed randomly in the slots so that every member of each of the tribes of Athens had their tokens placed in the same column. There was a pipe attached to the stone which could be fed dice that were coloured differently and could be released individually by a mechanism that has not survived to posterity; when a die was released, a complete row of tokens was either selected if the die was coloured one colour, or discarded if it was the alternate colour. This process continued. Prior to 403, courts published a number dikastes required for the day; those citizens who wanted to be dikasts queued at the entrance of the court at the beginning of the court day. The procedure was based on "first come first serve." Beginning in 403, Athenian allotment underwent a series of reforms, from 370 onward, they employed the kleroterion.
In Aristotle's Constitution of the Athenians, Aristotle gives an account of the selection of jurors to the dikastra. Each deme divided their dikastes into ten sections. Candidate citizens would place their identification ticket -pinaka- in the section's chest. Once each citizen who wished to become judge for the day placed their pinka in the chest, the presiding archon would shake the chest and draw out tickets; the citizen whose ticket was first drawn became the ticket-inserter. The ticket-inserter would pull out tickets and insert the tickets into their corresponding section; the Kleroterion was divided into one column per tribe section. Each row was known as a kanomides. Once the ticket-inserter filled the kleroterion, the archon placed a mix of black and white dice into the side of the kleroterion; the number of white dice was proportional to the number of jurors needed. The archon would allow the dice to fall through a tube on the side of the kleroterion and draw them one by one. If the die was white, the top row would be selected as jurors.
If the die was black, the archon would move on to the next row down from the top and repeat until all the juror positions were filled for the day. The first significant examination of Athenian allotment procedures was James Wycliffe Headlam's Election by Lot, first published in 1891. Aristotle's Constitution of the Athenians, the text of, first discovered in 1879 and first published as Aristotle's in 1890, became an important resource for scholars. Throughout the text, Aristotle makes references to a lottery system, used to appoint government officials. Archaeologists first discovered kleroteria in the 1930s in the Athenian Agora, which were dated to the second century BC. Sterling Dow's Aristotle, the Kleroteria, the Courts gave an overview and analysis of the discovered machines. Prior to Sterling Dow's 1939, the word kleroterion in Aristotle was translated as "allotment room." However, Dow reasoned that kleroterion cannot be translated to mean "room," as Aristotle writes that "There are five kanomides in each of the kleroteria.
Whenever he puts in the kyboi, the archon draws lots for the tribe the kleroterion." Dow concluded that Aristotle's 4th century description of the kleroterion applied to the 2nd century kleroterion. In 1937, Sterling Dow published a catalog of his archaeological discoveries in the Athenian Agora. In it, he describes 11 kleroteria fragments: Sortition Lottery machine Julian. "Info Tech of Ancient Democracy". Alamut.com. Demont, Paul. "Allotment and Democracy in Ancient Greece". Books and Ideas. Orlandini, Alessandro https://www.academia.edu/36510282/KLEROTERION._simulation_of_the_allotment_of_dikastai. Simulation of the allotment. Patrice Masini, Le tirage au sort démocratique, CNRS Images Alessandro Orlandini, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gt9H7nbZjAw, The Machine that Selected the Citizens of Athens
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they support limited government, individual rights, democracy, gender equality, racial equality, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets. Philosopher John Locke is credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life and property, adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract.
While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building. Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny. Liberalism started to spread especially after the French Revolution; the 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe and South America, whereas it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United States. In Victorian Britain, it was used to critique the political establishment, appealing to science and reason on behalf of the people. During 19th and early 20th century, liberalism in the Ottoman Empire and Middle East influenced periods of reform such as the Tanzimat and Al-Nahda as well as the rise of secularism, constitutionalism and nationalism; these changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day, leading to Islamic revivalism.
Before 1920, the main ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism faced major ideological challenges from new opponents: fascism and communism. However, during the 20th century liberal ideas spread further—especially in Western Europe—as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state. Today, liberal parties continue to wield influence throughout the world. However, liberalism still has challenges to overcome in Asia; the fundamental elements of contemporary society have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and parliamentary authority. Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association. Waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were influenced by the need to expand civil rights.
Liberals have advocated gender and racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights and a global civil rights movement in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals. Continental European liberalism is divided between moderates and progressives, with the moderates tending to elitism and the progressives supporting the universalisation of fundamental institutions, such as universal suffrage, universal education and the expansion of property rights. Over time, the moderates displaced the progressives as the main guardians of continental European liberalism. Words such as liberal, liberty and libertine all trace their history to the Latin liber, which means "free". One of the first recorded instances of the word liberal occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the liberal arts in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man; the word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations.
Liberal could refer to "free in bestowing" as early as 1387, "made without stint" in 1433, "freely permitted" in 1530 and "free from restraint"—often as a pejorative remark—in the 16th and the 17th centuries. In 16th century England, liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion. In Much Ado About Nothing, William Shakespeare wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath confest his vile encounters". With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823. In 1815, the first use of the word "liberalism" appeared in English. In Spain, the liberales, the first group to use the liberal label in a political context, fought for decades for the implementation of the 1812 Constitution. From 1820 to 1823 during the Trienio Liberal, King Ferdinand VII was compelled by the liberales to swear to uphold the Constitution. By the middle of the 19th century, liberal was used as a politicised term for parties and movements worldwide.
Over time, the meaning of the word liberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, where
Jacksonian democracy was a 19th-century political philosophy in the United States that expanded suffrage to most white men over the age of 21, restructured a number of federal institutions. Originating with the seventh President Andrew Jackson, his supporters, it became the nation's dominant political worldview for a generation; this era, called the Jacksonian Era by historians and political scientists, lasted from Jackson's 1828 election as president until slavery became the dominant issue in 1854 and the political repercussions of the American Civil War reshaped American politics. It emerged when the long-dominant Democratic-Republican Party became factionalized around the 1824 election. Jackson's supporters began to form the modern Democratic Party and his rivals John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay created the National Republican Party, which would afterward combine with other anti-Jackson political groups to form the Whig Party. Broadly speaking, the era was characterized by a democratic spirit and built upon Jackson's equal political policy.
Before the Jacksonian era began, suffrage had been extended to a majority of white male adult citizens, a result the Jacksonians celebrated. Jacksonian democracy promoted the strength of the presidency and executive branch at the expense of Congress, while seeking to broaden the public's participation in government; the Jacksonians demanded elected judges and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. In national terms, they favored geographical expansion. There was a consensus among both Jacksonians and Whigs that battles over slavery should be avoided. Jackson's expansion of democracy was limited to Americans of European descent and voting rights were extended to adult white males only. There was little or no progress for the rights of African Americans and Native Americans during the extensive period of Jacksonian Democracy, spanning from 1829 - 1860. Jackson's biographer Robert V. Remini argues: stretches the concept of democracy about as far as it can go and still remain workable....
As such it has inspired much of the dynamic and dramatic events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in American history—Populism, the New and Fair Deals, the programs of the New Frontier and Great Society. William S. Belko in 2015 summarizes "the core concepts underlying Jacksonian Democracy" as: equal protection of the laws. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in 1945 argues Jacksonian democracy was built on the following: Expanded suffrage – The Jacksonians believed that voting rights should be extended to all white men. By the end of the 1820s, attitudes and state laws had shifted in favor of universal white male suffrage and by 1856 all requirements to own property and nearly all requirements to pay taxes had been dropped. Manifest destiny – This was the belief that Americans had a destiny to settle the American West and to expand control from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific and that the West should be settled by yeoman farmers. However, the Free Soil Jacksonians, notably Martin Van Buren, argued for limitations on slavery in the new areas to enable the poor white man to flourish—they split with the main party in 1848.
The Whigs opposed Manifest Destiny and expansion, saying the nation should build up its cities. Patronage – Also known as the spoils system, patronage was the policy of placing political supporters into appointed offices. Many Jacksonians held the view that rotating political appointees in and out of office was not only the right, but the duty of winners in political contests. Patronage was theorized to be good because it would encourage political participation by the common man and because it would make a politician more accountable for poor government service by his appointees. Jacksonians held that long tenure in the civil service was corrupting, so civil servants should be rotated out of office at regular intervals. However, patronage led to the hiring of incompetent and sometimes corrupt officials due to the emphasis on party loyalty above any other qualifications. Strict constructionism – Like the Jeffersonians who believed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Jacksonians favored a federal government of limited powers.
Jackson said that he would guard against "all encroachments upon the legitimate sphere of State sovereignty". However, he was not a states' rights extremist—indeed, the Nullification Crisis would find Jackson fighting against what he perceived as state encroachments on the proper sphere of federal influence; this position was one basis for the Jacksonians' opposition to the Second Bank of the United States. As the Jacksonians consolidated power, they more advocated expanding federal power, presidential power in particular. Laissez-faire – Complementing a strict construction of the Constitution, the Jacksonians favored a hands-off approach to the economy as opposed to the Whig program sponsoring modernization, railroads and economic growth; the chief spokesman amongst laissez-faire advocates was William Leggett of the Locofocos in New York City. Opposition to banking – In particular, the Jacksonians opposed government-granted monopolies to banks the national bank, a central bank known as the Second Bank of the United States.
Jackson said: "The bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" and he did so. The Whigs, who supported the
Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions and the rejection of hierarchies those societies view as unjust. These institutions are described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more as distinct institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable and harmful. Anarchism is considered a far-left ideology and much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics; as anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular worldview, many anarchist types and traditions exist and varieties of anarchy diverge widely. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism, or similar dual classifications.
The etymological origin of anarchism derives from ancient Greek word anarkhia. Anarkhia meant "without a ruler" as it was composed by the word arkhos; the suffix -ism is used to denote the ideological current that favours anarchism. The first known use of this word was in 1642. Various factions within the French Revolution labelled opponents as anarchists although few shared many views of anarchists. There would be many revolutionaries of the early 19th century who contributed to the anarchist doctrines of the next generation, such as William Godwin and Wilhelm Weitling, but they did not use the word anarchist or anarchism in describing themselves or their beliefs; the first political philosopher to call himself an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, marking the formal birth of anarchism in the mid-19th century. Since the 1890s and beginning in France, the term libertarianism has been used as a synonym for anarchism and its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States. On the other hand, some use libertarianism to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, referring to free-market anarchism as libertarian anarchism.
While opposition to the state is central, defining anarchism is not an easy task as there is a lot of talk among scholars and anarchists on the matter and various currents perceive anarchism differently. Hence, it might be true to say that anarchism is a cluster of political philosophies opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of all human relations in favour of a society based on voluntary association and decentralisation, but this definition has its own shortcomings as the definition based on etymology, or based on anti-statism or the anti-authoritarian. Major elements of the definition of anarchism include: a) the will for a non coercive society. During the prehistoric era of mankind, an established authority did not exist, it was after the creation of towns and cities that hierarchy was invented and anarchistic ideas espoused as a reaction. Most notable examples of anarchism in the ancient world were in Greece. In China, philosophical anarchism, meaning peaceful delegitimizing of the state, was delineated by Taoist philosophers.
In Greece, anarchist attitudes were articulated by tragedians and philosophers. Aeschylus and Sophocles used the myth of Antigone to illustrate the conflict of personal autonomy with the state rules. Socrates questioned Athenian authorities and insisted to the right of individual freedom of consciousness. Cynics associated authorities while trying to live according to nature. Stoics were supportive of a society based on unofficial and friendly relations among its citizens without the presence of a state. During the Middle Ages, there was no anarchistic activity except some ascetic religious movements in the Islamic world or in Christian Europe; this kind of tradition gave birth to religious anarchism. In Persia, a Zoroastrian Prophet known as Mazdak was calling for an egalitarian society and the abolition of monarchy, but he soon found himself executed by the king. In Basra, religious sects preached against the state. In Europe, various sects developed anti-state and libertarian tendencies; those currents were the precursor of religious anarchism in the centuries to come.
It was in the Renaissance and with the spread of reasoning and humanism through Europe that libertarian ideas emerged. Writers were outlining in their novels ideal societies that were based not on coercion but voluntarism; the Enlightenment further pushed towards anarchism with the optimism for social progress. The turning point towards anarchism was the French Revolution in which the anti-state and federalist sentiments began to take a form by Enragés and sans-culottes; some prominent figures of anarchism begun developing the first anarchist currents. That is the era of classical anarchism that lasted until the end of the Spanish Civil War of 1936 and was the golden age of anarchism. William Godwin espoused philosophical anarchism in England morally delegitimizing the state, Max Stirner's thinking paved the way to individualism and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's theory of mutualism found fertile soil in France. Michael Bakunin took mutualism and extended
Democratic peace theory
Democratic peace theory is a theory which posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies. Among proponents of the democratic peace theory, several factors are held as motivating peace between democratic states: Democratic leaders are forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public; those who dispute this theory do so on grounds that it conflates correlation with causation, that the academic definitions of'democracy' and'war' can be manipulated so as to manufacture an artificial trend. Though the democratic peace theory was not rigorously or scientifically studied until the 1960s, the basic principles of the concept had been argued as early as the 1700s in the works of philosopher Immanuel Kant and political theorist Thomas Paine. Kant foreshadowed the theory in his essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch written in 1795, although he thought that a world with only constitutional republics was only one of several necessary conditions for a perpetual peace.
Kant's theory was that a majority of the people would never vote to go to war, unless in self-defense. Therefore, if all nations were republics, it would end war. In earlier but less cited works, Thomas Paine made similar or stronger claims about the peaceful nature of republics. Paine wrote in "Common Sense" in 1776: "The Republics of Europe are all in peace." Paine argued. French historian and social scientist Alexis de Tocqueville argued, in Democracy in America, that democratic nations were less to wage war. Dean Babst, a criminologist, was the first to do statistical research on this topic, his academic paper supporting the theory was published in 1964 in Wisconsin Sociologist. Both versions received little attention. Melvin Small and J. David Singer responded; this paper was published in the Jerusalem Journal of International Relations which brought more widespread attention to the theory, started the academic debate. A 1983 paper by political scientist Michael W. Doyle contributed further to popularizing the theory.
Rudolph J. Rummel was another early researcher and drew considerable lay attention to the subject in his works. Maoz & Abdolali extended the research to lesser conflicts than wars. Bremer and Maoz & Russett found the correlation between democracy and peacefulness remained significant after controlling for many possible confounding variables; this moved the theory into the mainstream of social science. Supporters of realism in international relations and others responded by raising many new objections. Other researchers attempted more systematic explanations of how democracy might cause peace, of how democracy might affect other aspects of foreign relations such as alliances and collaboration. There have been numerous further studies in the field since these pioneering works. Most studies have found some form of democratic peace exists, although neither methodological disputes nor doubtful cases are resolved. Research on the democratic peace theory has to define "democracy" and "peace". Democracies have been defined differently by different researchers.
Some examples: Small and Singer define democracy as a nation that holds periodic elections in which the opposition parties are as free to run as government parties, allows at least 10% of the adult population to vote, has a parliament that either controls or enjoys parity with the executive branch of the government. Doyle requires that "liberal regimes" have market or private property economics, they have policies that are internally sovereign, they have citizens with juridical rights, they have representative governments. Either 30% of the adult males were able to vote or it was possible for every man to acquire voting rights as by attaining enough property, he allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other researchers. Ray requires that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election; this definition excludes long periods viewed as democratic.
For example, the United States until 1800, India from independence until 1979, Japan until 1993 were all under one-party rule, thus would not be counted under this definition. Rummel states that "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise.
Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, suppliers and the broader public. No single definition or approach encompasses economic democracy, but most proponents claim that modern property relations externalize costs, subordinate the general well-being to private profit and deny the polity a democratic voice in economic policy decisions. In addition to these moral concerns, economic democracy makes practical claims, such as that it can compensate for capitalism's inherent effective demand gap. Proponents of economic democracy argue that modern capitalism periodically results in economic crises characterized by deficiency of effective demand as society is unable to earn enough income to purchase its output production. Corporate monopoly of common resources creates artificial scarcity, resulting in socio-economic imbalances that restrict workers from access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power.
Economic democracy has been proposed as a component of larger socioeconomic ideologies, as a stand-alone theory and as a variety of reform agendas. For example, as a means to securing full economic rights, it opens a path to full political rights, defined as including the former. Both market and non-market theories of economic democracy have been proposed; as a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples range from decentralization and economic liberalization to democratic cooperatives, public banking, fair trade and the regionalization of food production and currency. According to many analysts, deficiency of effective demand is the most fundamental economic problem; that is, modern society does not earn enough income to purchase its output. For example, geographer David Harvey claims, "Workers spending their wages is one source of effective demand, but the total wage bill is always less than the total capital in circulation, so the purchase of wage goods that sustain daily life is never sufficient for the profitable sale of the total output".
While balanced mixed economies have existed throughout history, veteran Project Manager for the U. S. Treasury Department, Richard C. Cook and other critics claim that command economies are predominate, citing state capitalism and imperialism as related; as common resources are monopolized by imperial centers of wealth and power, conditions of scarcity are imposed artificially upon the majority, resulting in large-scale socio-economic imbalance. In the Georgist view of any economic system, "wealth" includes all material things produced by labor for the satisfaction of human desires and having exchange value. Land and capital are considered the essential factors in producing wealth. Land includes all natural forces. Labor includes all human exertion. Capital includes the portion of wealth devoted to producing more wealth. While the income of any individual might include proceeds from any combination of these three sources—land and capital are considered mutually exclusive factors in economic models of the production and distribution of wealth.
According to Henry George: "People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion". Human beings interact with nature to produce goods and services that other human beings need or desire; the laws and customs that govern the relationships among these entities constitute the economic structure of a given society. Alternately, David Schweickart asserts in his book, After Capitalism: "The structure of a capitalist society consists of three basic components: "The bulk of the means of production are owned, either directly by individuals or by corporations that are themselves owned by private individuals. "Products are exchanged in a market --, to say and services are bought and sold at prices determined for the most part by competition and not by some governmental pricing authority. Individual enterprises compete with one another in providing goods and services to consumers, each enterprise trying to make a profit; this competition is the primary determinant of prices. "Most of the people who work for pay in this society work for other people, who own the means of production.
Most working people are'wage labourers'". Supply and demand are accepted as market functions for establishing prices. Organisations endeavor to 1) minimize the cost of production. But, according to David Schweickart, if "those who produce the goods and services of society are paid less than their productive contribution" as consumers they cannot buy all the goods produced, investor confidence tends to decline, triggering declines in production and employment; such economic instability stems from a central contradiction: Wages are both a cost of production and an essential source of effective demand, resulting in deficiency of effective demand along with a growing interest in economic democracy. In chapter 3 of his book, "Community Organizing: Theory and Practice", Douglas P. Biklen discusses a variety of perspectives on "The Making of Social Problems". One of those views suggests that "writers and organizers who define social problems in terms of social and economic democracy see problems not as the experiences of poor people, but as the relationship of poverty to wealth and exploitation".
Biklen states that according to this viewpoint: orporate power, upper class power, uneven distribution of wealth and prejudice cause social problems... he problem is not one of poverty, but of enormous wealth. The problem is not one o
Jewish and democratic state
"Jewish and democratic state" is the Israeli legal definition of the nature and character of the State of Israel. The "Jewish" nature was first defined within the Declaration of Independence of 1948; the "Democratic" character was first added in the amendment to the Basic Law: the Knesset, passed in 1985. Numerous scholars and political observers have debated the definition whether the terms are contradictory or complementary. According to Yossi Klein Halevi, "Israel is based on two non-negotiable identities; the homeland of all Jews, whether or not they are citizens of Israel, it's the state of all its citizens, whether or not they are Jews." The Israeli Declaration of Independence identifies Israel as a "Jewish State," In the sense that Jews as ethnicity can exercise their right for self determination. It does it deny minority rights; the word "Democratic" is absent throughout the Israeli Declaration of Independence. However, the declaration states the intention to: "Ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex: It will guarantee freedom of religion, language and culture.
Since no constitution had been passed by 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that the Declaration of Independence document is a guiding principle of Israeli society and its state, the need to define the Jewish nature and Democratic character of the State of Israel arose. During the 1984 Knesset elections, religious ideas were brought up that were aimed at canceling the democratic character of Israel, replacing it with a theocratic Halachic state, thus in the eleventh Knesset session, the amendment to the Basic Law: the Knesset was passed, that stipulated that: "7A. A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, if the goals or actions of the list, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Since the definition of "a Jewish and democratic state" was used in additional Basic Laws of Israel: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, that were legislated in 1992, amended in 1994.
These laws states that: "1. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." "2. The purpose of this Basic Law if to protect freedom of occupation, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." As part of a project to draft a constitution for Israel by the Israel Democracy Institute led by former Chief Justice Aharon Barak, the country's Jewish and democratic character was described as follows: The State of Israel is a Jewish state in the following two senses: it is the political framework in which the right of the Jewish people to self-determination is manifested and it is a "Jewish nation-state." A first and necessary condition to being a Jewish and democratic state is a decisive majority of Jews in the State. Israel’s attribute as a Jewish and democratic state is conveyed through aspects of Zionism and Jewish heritage.
Other aspects are Hebrew being the main official language of the State and the inextricable link to Jewish culture in public life. On the other hand, the characterization of the State as Jewish is not intended to bestow extra privileges on its Jewish citizens and does not obligate the imposition of religious requirements by state law; the State of Israel is democratic in the following sense: the sovereign is the entire community of the nation’s citizens, irrespective of ethnic-national origin. In the main, the character of the State as a democratic country is manifested by two basic principles: the first being the recognition of the dignity of man qua man, the second, derived from the first, is the recognition of the values of equality and tolerance. Arrangements regarding free and equal elections, the recognition of the core human rights, including dignity and equality, separation of powers, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, are all drawn from these principles. Democracy’s basic principles require equal treatment of all those included as citizens of the State, without regard to their ethnic, religious and linguistic affiliations.
The IDI concludes that "the definition of Israel as a'Jewish state' does not contradict its definition as a'state of its citizens.' Although the State is Jewish in that, within its framework, the realization of certain interests of the Jewish people is ensured and its identity is protected and developed, its sovereignty lies in its community of citizens, including the non-Jewish community."The boundaries of the definition of "a Jewish and democratic state" are subject to public discourse in Israel, in context of the relation between state and government. In 1994, the question whether Israeli Government is permitted to limit the import of Non-Kos