{"id":560,"date":"2020-07-07T16:25:12","date_gmt":"2020-07-07T16:25:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/"},"modified":"2020-07-07T16:25:12","modified_gmt":"2020-07-07T16:25:12","slug":"pagbuo-ng-demokrasya-2-0-ang-pangalawang-inobasyon-na-nagbunga-ng-modernong-demokrasya","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/","title":{"rendered":"Pagbuo ng Demokrasya 2.0: Ang Ikalawang Inobasyon na Nagbunga ng Makabagong Demokrasya"},"template":"","class_list":["post-560","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"This is part 3 in a multi-part series examining ways to build an inclusive democracy for the 21st century.","featured_image":null,"article_type":162,"authors":["{\"site_id\":\"68\",\"post_type\":\"person\",\"post_id\":555}"],"related_issues":[109,417],"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"If the first innovation spawning democracy revolved around the individual\u2019s new role in driving a society\u2019s decisions, the second innovation centered on the new role of groups in that process.\u00a0 In a democracy, the individual acts as the audience \u2013 the recipient of information and a respondent to it.\u00a0 The individual passes judgment on information provided and that judgment shapes the actions of decision-makers.\u00a0 In essence, individuals send a collective signal to a group whose success depends on translating that signal into the operations of society.\u00a0 This signal, if operationalized, brings a cohesion to society, making it stronger and more adaptable to changing circumstances than other systems of government.\r\n\r\nThe second innovation revolves around the group of actors soliciting and acting upon the signal received from individuals.\u00a0 In a democracy, a group in the form of a candidate and her team or a party rely on the approval of voters in an election.\u00a0 This relationship causes these groups to act in a fundamentally different way from groups of decision-makers in other political systems.\u00a0 \u00a0This essay will describe this process, how the Founding Fathers created a framework for this adaptation and why it allowed democracy to change fundamentally the course of human development.\r\n\r\nConflict<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn Liberalism: the Life of an Idea<\/u>, Edmund Fawcett pinpoints a new type of behavior or practice that forms a distinctive feature of liberal democracy.\u00a0 In contrast to other political ideologies, Fawcett describes liberal democracy as an \u201coutlook\u201d or a certain practice relating to politics.\u00a0 He identifies one of its central features as conflict.\u00a0 He writes:\r\n

\"Liberalism\u2019s first guiding idea \u2013 conflict \u2013 was less an ideal or principle than a way to picture society and what to expect from society.\u00a0 Lasting conflict of interests and beliefs was, to the liberal mind, inescapable.\u00a0 Social harmony was not achievable, and to pursue it was foolish.\u00a0 That picture was less stark than it looked, for harmony was not even desirable.\u00a0 Harmony stifled creativity and blocked initiative. \u00a0Conflict, if tamed and turned to competition in a stable political order, could bear fruit as argument, experiment, and exchange.\"<\/p>\r\nThis description by Fawcett aptly captures a critical aspect of representative democracy.\u00a0 Certain practices and behaviors define democracy and those practices sanction a high degree of conflict.\u00a0 Of course, prior to the emergence of democracy, there was plenty of conflict.\u00a0 But in other systems, those in power did not sanction conflict except by them against others who threatened their power.\u00a0 Typically, a family, clan or individual held power by threat of force, until another family, clan or individual took power from them.\r\n\r\nFawcett carries this distinctive feature of democracy forward to the 19th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 After the establishment of the United States, liberal democracy expanded in Europe.\u00a0 It encountered two main alternative political systems: \u00a0socialism and conservatism (note:\u00a0 Fawcett uses the term conservatism to denote traditional societies \u2013 not as the term is used in contemporary American politics).\u00a0 Conservatives \u201cappealed to the fixity of the past, socialism to the fixity of the future.\u201d\u00a0 Conservatives believed in the \u201cunchallengeable authority of rulers and custom ...\u00a0 Civic respect, to the conservative mind, overindulged human willfulness and private choice.\u00a0 It shortchanged duty, deference, and obedience.\u00a0 Conservatives took society for a harmonious, orderly whole ...\u201d\u00a0 Not only did conservative societies not trust individuals to exercise independent judgment, they eschewed conflict among those competing for power.\r\n\r\nSocialists, on the other hand, believed that society was divided by class and this division created conflict among the classes.\u00a0 Socialists argued that conflict would end once a socialist government gained power and extinguished the material inequities dividing the classes.\u00a0 In other words, once a socialist government gained power, the source of conflict would be vanquished.\u00a0 Class division would disappear and harmony would reign.\r\n\r\nThe 20th<\/sup> century saw the rise of communism and fascism.\u00a0 Like socialism, communism appealed to the unity of class.\u00a0 Fascism appealed to the unity of race or nationhood.\u00a0 Once in power, neither system indulged conflict or competition.\u00a0 Consequently, the acceptance of conflict as a permanent aspect of society marks a defining aspect of democracies in contrast to other political systems.\r\n\r\nChecks and Balances<\/strong>\r\n\r\nGiven that conflict operated as a key practice for democratic societies and there were no practicing democracies to observe in 1776, the Founding Fathers had little to say about it directly.\u00a0 Based on their personal experience with political systems, they tended to equate conflict with oppression by a ruling authority.\u00a0 No one had actually witnessed a peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next.\u00a0 Nevertheless, the framers were keen observers of human nature.\u00a0 They knew humans tended to align with others with common interests and those alliances sparked tension among different groups.\u00a0 Instead of envisioning a harmonious society devoid of conflict, the Founding Fathers established a framework that would allow conflict and competition to blossom as a constructive force for human progress.\r\n\r\nThe best description of this framework related to the idea of checks and balances.\u00a0 This system would distribute authority horizontally rather than concentrating it at the top.\u00a0 In Federalist 51, Madison outlines how conflict will operate in this new republic.\u00a0 He wrote that, \u201cIn order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government ... it is evident that each department should have a will of its own ...\u201d\u00a0 An executive, legislative and judicial branch would operate independently.\u00a0 Members of each branch should \u201chave as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.\u201d\u00a0 He elaborates in one of the great passages about the object of democracy:\r\n

\"It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.\u00a0 But what is government, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?\u00a0 If men were angels, no government would be necessary.\u00a0 If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.\u00a0 In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this; you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.\"<\/u><\/p>\r\nMadison acknowledges, \u201cA dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on government, but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.\u201d Here, Madison articulates a vision of government where, through the distribution of roles and responsibilities, conflict and competition will provide a leveling effect, allowing government to control itself.\u00a0 \u201cThis policy of supplying by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives \u2026 where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, the new democratic republic will fundamentally alter how conflict is managed.\u00a0 Instead of being managed vertically between ruler and ruled, it will be managed horizontally among co-equal branches of government.\r\n\r\nMadison did not stop there.\u00a0 He understood that democracy went beyond the structure of government.\u00a0 It constituted a new social order that depended on the practices of its citizens.\u00a0 He then extended the notion of checks and balances to the operation of society itself \u2013 \u201cto guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.\u201d\u00a0 He knew that tyranny of the majority can be just as pernicious as tyranny by a ruler.\u00a0 In considering different ways to address this challenge, Madison said there really can only be one way in a democracy:\u00a0 \u201call authority \u2026 will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.\u201d\u00a0 Without explicitly using the terms \u201cconflict\u201d or \u201ccompetition,\u201d Madison suggested the interplay among multiple, diverse interests must serve as a check on oppression. \u00a0In this way, conflict could become a constructive force.\r\n\r\nConflict as Practice <\/strong>\r\n\r\nGiven its importance as an adaptation in the social organization known as democracy, it is worth considering how conflict operates as a practice.\u00a0 The terms \u201cconflict\u201d and \u201ccompetition\u201d as we know them do not adequately capture this adaptation.\u00a0 Democracy provides a framework to channel conflict into competition among groups that ultimately leads to compromise and exchange.\u00a0 All of these interconnected actions made democracy a radical departure from previous forms of governance. Without them, democracy could not generate the radical material progress that it has.\r\n\r\nConflict describes the fact that democracy tolerates or even embraces a level of strife or discord.\u00a0 The fact this conflict occurs among and between a multitude of interests vying for influence and power channels conflict into competition. \u00a0In a democracy, competition plays out politically as groups seek the support of voters by offering alternative platforms or messages based on priorities expressed by the voters.\u00a0 Ultimately, conflict and competition pass through the prism of an election.\r\n\r\nAs noted, the election acts as a signal from individuals in response to messages about salient issues and solutions.\u00a0 On one level, the signal of an election tells an elected official what voters want. \u00a0As anyone who has worked closely with elected officials knows, the only thing more important than getting elected is getting reelected after having had a taste of power.\u00a0 Standing for reelection operates as a motivator to discern the intent of voters \u2013 the same voters who will determine whether that official continues to serve in office.\u00a0 By requiring sequential elections, a democracy encourages the exchange of ideas.\u00a0 To carry out the wishes of the electorate expressed in an election or to prepare for reelection, an elected official may compromise with other officials to enact legislation or simply coop the ideas of opponents to dampen opposition.\u00a0 Thereby, conflict is channeled constructively.\r\n\r\nOf course, competition can be fierce. \u00a0But it is important to recognize that the competition associated with democracy is distinctly different from other forms of competition.\u00a0 In particular, it can be characterized as \u201csoft competition.\u201d\u00a0 Politicians compete within an electoral framework of rules, protocol and norms.\u00a0 Losers accept the results of an election.\u00a0 Those elected may compromise with opponents, leading to exchange.\u00a0 Given that competitors expect their opponents will honor the same rules relating to the transition of power, mutual trust in the system builds.\u00a0 Recall the quote from Surowiecki in Essay 1: \u201c[Democracy is] an experience of seeing your opponents win and get what you hoped to have, and of accepting it, because you believe they will not destroy the things you value and because you know you will have another chance to get what you want.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn contrast, forms of \u201chard competition\u201d are anathema to democracy.\u00a0 In such systems, competitors seek to annihilate their opponents so there will be no future competition with them.\u00a0 They are willing to take down the system if it means they have won.\u00a0 Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt capture this concept in How Democracies Die<\/u>.\u00a0 They describe what happens when polarization leads politicians toward hard competition.\u00a0 They write, \u201cThe erosion of mutual toleration may motivate politicians to deploy their institutional powers as broadly as they can get away with.\u00a0 Then parties view one another as mortal enemies, the stakes of political competition heighten dramatically.\u00a0 Losing ceases to be a routine and accepted part of the political process and instead becomes a full-blown catastrophe.\u201d\u00a0 Under these circumstances, politicians stop exercising forbearance in anticipation of reciprocal treatment.\u00a0 Competition no longer leads to exchange and compromise.\u00a0 Society stagnates or descends into anti-democratic systems. Therefore, hard competition stands opposed to a sustainable, functioning democracy.\r\n\r\nLike the first innovation that produced democracy, the second innovation was a human adaptation.\u00a0 It also shared a close kinship with the mutually reinforcing practices associated with the marketplace emerging at that time and as described by Adam Smith.\u00a0 Both systems relied on individuals or consumers sending a signal to groups that would translate the signal into action by either producing goods or policy responses.\u00a0 Instead of managing conflict vertically, conflict operated horizontally among a multitude of enterprises and interests competing for allegiance of individuals and customers.\u00a0 While the market lacks the intervening periods between elections, the fact that politicians must stand for reelection sustains a level of competition, including possible exchanges and compromises, until the next election occurs.\u00a0 In this way, both the market and democracy convert conflict into competition and ultimately exchange, leading to progress.\r\n\r\nAnd so the democratic experiment was launched.\u00a0 While a number of key antecedents laid the groundwork for it and our Founding Fathers leaned heavily on the great political philosophers of that time for inspiration, the Framers had to put ideas into practice without the benefit of living examples.\u00a0 Importantly, they understood democracy relied on radically different social roles.\u00a0 In that regard, the Framers produced two of the great innovations in human history.\u00a0 The new democratic system would tap the wisdom of the crowd, which harnessed the collective brain power of a large diverse population to solve pressing issues facing the nation.\u00a0 Further, this new system would convert conflict from operating as an impediment to competition to one that imbued \u201csoft competition\u201d into the practices of the political process.\u00a0 This type of competition encouraged the growth of trust, reciprocity, cooperation and exchange \u2013 the main ingredients of progress.\r\n\r\nWhy this Stuff Matters?<\/strong>\r\n\r\nEssay 1 stated boldly that the human adaptations associated with democracy may have been the single most impactful innovations in human history.\u00a0 That statement was not intended as hyperbole.\u00a0 Acknowledging that correlation does not imply causation, the numbers are compelling.\u00a0 Prior to the emergence of democracy, economic growth remained fairly static throughout human history.\u00a0 Essentially, humans lived in a Malthusian trap.\u00a0 Whenever a new technological innovation occurred such as the windmill or a new irrigation system, population would grow and then the standard of living would drop.\u00a0 Economic historian, Gregory Clark summed it up, stating, \u201cIn the preindustrial world, sporadic technological advance produced people, not wealth.\u201d\r\n\r\nSomething new started to happen with the advent of democratic republics.\u00a0 For the first time, incomes began outstripping population growth.\u00a0 Year by year, people experienced increasing prosperity.\u00a0 British economist Angus Maddison attempted to reconstruct economic growth in all regions of the world.\u00a0 While imperfect for some regions, his work has become the main source of long-run reconstructions of economic growth used today. \u00a0This analysis shows that nearly all humans lived in poverty until the last 200 years.\u00a0 And then economic growth, as reflected in per capita GDP, exploded as democracy took hold \u2013 and it exploded first in those nations that adopted democracy.\u00a0 The following chart of per capita GDP over the last 2000 years is stark:\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\nIt is easy to point to technological innovation in the form of the Industrial Revolution as the source of economic growth. \u00a0However, as noted, history provides numerous examples of major technological breakthrough that failed to produce prosperity. \u00a0Prior to the 19th<\/sup> century, those breakthroughs did not lead to sustained increases in per capital GDP.\u00a0 It is plausible to say that democracy and its interplay with the free market created the conditions necessary for dramatic improvements to the level of prosperity.\u00a0 By tapping the public to set priorities through the political process, democratic nations found ways to translate innovation into broad based improvement to the standard of living. The fact that liberal democracies made massive investments in the early 20th<\/sup> century in infrastructure to provide sanitary sewer and potable water to major urban centers is one of many examples how public policy managed to channel economic growth towards radical improvements to living conditions, unlocking the productive capacity of millions.\r\n\r\nWith the benefit of 200 years of growing prosperity and hindsight, it is easy to point to examples of economic growth created by rival political systems.\u00a0 The Soviet Union in the 1930s managed to industrialize a backwards economy in a short period of time.\u00a0 China has produced phenomenal economic growth since the 1970s.\u00a0 Both the Soviet Union and China lacked the two key features of a democracy:\u00a0 the wisdom of the crowd and horizontal conflict. \u00a0Of course, the Soviet Union showed the limits of central planning by the 1980s (and maybe much earlier).\u00a0 The story remains to be told on China.\u00a0 More importantly, China and the Soviet Union came in the wake of democratic successes.\u00a0 How do you measure the effectiveness of another system when it can leverage the myriad of technological innovations produced elsewhere to achieve such growth?\r\n\r\nI make these points to give democracy its due. It has had a great run. \u00a0The material circumstances of untold people around the world have benefited from the radical experiment concocted at Constitutional Hall back in 1787.\u00a0 Also, I say this in full recognition that GDP does not measure happiness, equality and quality of life.\u00a0 Many groups and individuals face horrible and often unfair hardships, such as systemic racism.\u00a0 Later, I will address the current challenges to democracy and whether it remains a relevant and viable framework today.\u00a0 The events of 2020 certainly expose these challenges in stark relief.\u00a0 But for now, it is important to understand how and why democracy marked such an important step forward for humans.\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\nMack Paul is a member of the state advisory board of Common Cause NC and a founding partner of Morningstar Law Group.<\/em>\r\n\r\nParts in this series:\r\n\r\nIntroduction: Building Democracy 2.0<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 1: What Is Democracy and Why Is It Important?<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 2: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 3: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 4: The Rise and Function of Political Parties \u2013 Setting the Record Straight<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 5: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 6: Parties and the Challenge of Voter Engagement<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 7: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 8: Rousseau and \u2018the Will of the People\u2019<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 9: The Dark Secret of Majority\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 10: The Promise of Proportional\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 11: Majorities, Minorities and Innovation in Electoral\u00a0Design<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 12: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in\u00a0the\u00a0U.S.<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 13: Building Democracy 2.0: The Uses and Abuses of Redistricting in American Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\n "}}]},"yoast_head":"\nBuilding Democracy 2.0: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy - Common Cause North Carolina<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/mga-artikulo-2\/pagbuo-ng-demokrasya-2-0-ang-pangalawang-inobasyon-na-nagbunga-ng-modernong-demokrasya\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/mga-artikulo-2\/pagbuo-ng-demokrasya-2-0-ang-pangalawang-inobasyon-na-nagbunga-ng-modernong-demokrasya\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Common Cause North Carolina\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/\",\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy - Common Cause North Carolina\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-07-07T16:25:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"tl\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\",\"name\":\"Common Cause North Carolina\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"tl\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pagbuo ng Demokrasya 2.0: Ang Ikalawang Inobasyon na Nagbunga ng Makabagong Demokrasya - Karaniwang Dahilan North Carolina","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/mga-artikulo-2\/pagbuo-ng-demokrasya-2-0-ang-pangalawang-inobasyon-na-nagbunga-ng-modernong-demokrasya\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy","og_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/mga-artikulo-2\/pagbuo-ng-demokrasya-2-0-ang-pangalawang-inobasyon-na-nagbunga-ng-modernong-demokrasya\/","og_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/","name":"Pagbuo ng Demokrasya 2.0: Ang Ikalawang Inobasyon na Nagbunga ng Makabagong Demokrasya - Karaniwang Dahilan North Carolina","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-07-07T16:25:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"tl","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-the-second-innovation-that-gave-rise-to-modern-democracy\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Building Democracy 2.0: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/","name":"Karaniwang Dahilan North Carolina","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"tl"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/560","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}