Democracy requires that all the different groups in society can agree to work together. It is important that different groups can reach an agreement on what is best for the whole community, even if it is not what it is best for their group specifically. This is sometimes called the “common good”.

This means that groups (and the government) need to think about the future. For example, cutting down forests might have short-term economic advantages. But in the long term, it could cause many environmental problems.

Democracy requires different groups to agree on the most important goals and values that they share. This builds a foundation for cooperation and dialogue on smaller, more practical issues.

Tolerance and compromise can be seen in the following ways:

• People find ways to manage their different interests and ideas and make them peacefully coexist.

• An understanding that no one group can/should get everything they want.

• Minorities respect the decisions of the majority, and the majority respects the rights of minorities.

Democratic citizens manage their diverse needs and opinions of by practicing tolerance. Tolerance means respecting other people’s ideas and beliefs, even if you disagree with them. Democracy is based on the free exchange of ideas. If citizens want the right to express their ideas freely, then they must accept the right of others to do the same. People who have unpopular views, or views that go against those of the government, must be allowed to organize, participate and express their ideas and opinions. When citizens practice tolerance, different ideas and opinions can be peacefully shared in public debates. This means that citizens have the chance to better understand the issues by hearing to the views of others. They discover the best solution by explaining their own ideas, listening to others and asking questions.

This way, decisions are more likely to be accepted, even by those who oppose them, because all citizens have been allowed to understand the reasons for the decision.

Pluralism and civic culture

Tolerance and compromise are two values that are at the heart of two of the most important “soft” institutions that support democracy: pluralism and civic culture.

1. Civic Pluralism. Pluralism refers to diversity in the civic actors who take part in civic and political life. Examples of civic pluralism include:

• Numerous political parties, NGOs and interest groups represent a broad range of interests an values in society

• Parties, NGOs and think thanks monitor the political process, expose abused, and lobby for political reform.

• Alternative source of information: public has access to many sources of information, independent of government control. Diverse range of media, which are pluralistic, and with different owners, predominantly private.

• Government ownership and regulation of the mass media is very limited

2. Civic Culture. Civic culture refers to the norms and values of democratic society. Examples of civic culture include when competing parties and social groups are:

• Tolerant of opposing views and groups

• Law-abiding, respectful of the constitution

• Peaceful, reject violence

• Willing to compromise

• Unwilling to coalition with undemocratic, anti-system actors

The vast majority of citizens, parties and social groups:

• Believe in the legitimacy of democracy

• Are loyal to the constitutional system

• Know their rights and obligations as citizens

• Respect the outcome of elections

• Question but respect authority

• Condemn acts of intolerance and violations of constitutional norms

Box: The role of Consensus in Finland’s Political Culture Consensus has been the dominant mode of Finnish politics since the formation of a broadly based coalition government in 1966 and the establishment of the comprehensive incomes policy system in the late 1960s. The government, made up of parties fundamentally opposed to each other, was formed at the insistence of President Kekkonen. He had long wished to heal the deep and bitter rifts that had marred Finnish public life since the country had gained independence in 1917. The dozen or so political parties that made up the country’s party system in 1966 reflected the divisions that ran through Finnish society. The socialist end of the spectrum was broken into two mutually hostile, roughly equal segments, communist and social democratic, often accompanied by leftist splinter groups. The political middle was filled, first, by the agrarian Center Party, the country’s most important party, with a rural base in a society that was rapidly becoming urbanized; second, by the Swedish People’s Party (Svenska Folkpartiet--SFP), representing a minority worried about its future and divided along class lines; and third, by a classic liberal party that was in decline. The right consisted of a highly conservative party tied to big business and to high officials, the KOK; and the radical Finnish Rural Party (Suomen Maaseudun Puolue—SMP). Kekkonen’s presidential power and personal prestige enabled him to form in 1966 the popular front government that pulled together sizable social groups to realize important welfare legislation in the late 1960s. Another characteristic of Finnish politics and public life was the common practice of reaching agreements on key questions through informal backstairs elite consultation. Often disputes were settled through private discussions by the concerned parties before they were handled in the formal bargaining sites established for their public resolution. This was true for wage package settlements, as well as for legislative proposals scheduled for debate in the Eduskunta, and for other issues that required negotiation and compromise.   An institutionalized version of behind-the-scenes negotiations was the Evening School of the Cabinet, where leading figures of various groups could freely discuss issues on the government’s agenda. The Finnish tradition of informal sauna discussions was an extreme example of informal inter-elite consultations. Some observers claimed that important national decisions were made there in an atmosphere where frank bargaining could be most easily practiced. Advocates of these informal means of uniting elite representatives of diverse interests held that they were quick and to the point. Opponents countered that they encouraged secrecy, bypassed government institutions, and ultimately subverted democracy. The public opinion has since steered radically towards openness and public consultation in politics and all decision-making.   Source: http://countrystudies.us/finland/123.htm

Tolerance and Compromise and Political Parties

Peaceful and regular competition for political power through elections is a defining feature of stable democracy. Democracy implies that dialogue and public debate, rather than violence and oppression, are the primary means of government. Meaningful political competition generally requires a measure of political pluralism: several political groups must be willing and able to compete for power in elections.

Where regular electoral competition for political power takes place, power is less likely to be monopolized in the hands of one dominant group. Political parties play a role in both lowering tension between groups in society and ensuring political pluralism. They offer competing groups such as revolutionary movements, military organizations, and remnants of the old regime and ordinary citizens an organizational form for organizing their supporters and for expressing, promoting and defending their interests and demands. Empirical evidence from Afghanistan, for instance, suggests that at least some armed groups and local warlords gave up armed fighting when offered the alternative of having a share in political power through the vehicle of a political party. While this is by no means a secured outcome, it is clear that the absence of effective guarantees for political parties is a disincentive for groups to peacefully compete for power within the democratic political system.
Political parties are more effective in upholding competition among groups than isolated individuals. In the absence of effective intermediary organizations like political parties it is easier for small groups to capture and monopolize the state apparatus. In addition, social organization may fall back on kinship and tribal ties, as was the case in pre-revolutionary Libya where political parties and other intermediary organizations were mostly absent.

In new democracies, a plurality of political voices may emerge following the collapse of a political regime that previously suppressed the free expression of political opinion and prohibited political association. Political parties may help to aggregate these voices and bring cohesiveness to an otherwise chaotic and divided political system.

Parties offer a release valve for social tensions and enable citizens and social groups to feel part of the same political community despite differences of ethnic background or religious views. Indeed, a 2013 opinion poll in Libya showed that post-revolutionary party affiliation tended to be driven more by the parties’ political ambitions than by local or tribal ties. (Riegner and Stacey 201 4:7)