In the United States democracy was nearer to realization in 1800 than in most European countries, and, consequently, the advances made since that time have been more gradual and less spectacular than those in Europe. In the first half of the century the main ments') in °democmtizine the nation consisted in the abolition of the aristocratic property qualifications for the exercise of the suffrage and in the vulgarization of the concept and practices of democracy, as a result of the Jack sonian system. To men like Jefferson democ racy had a strong Aristotelian flavor and great emphasis was laid upon special training, high intelligence and expert direction of government. With the advent of the Jacksonians all this was changed. The °dangers') of special prepara' tion for office were emphasized, supreme faith' was put in °pure° democracy, and rotation in office and the °spoils° system were made the indispensable guides for administrative proce dure. It was not strange, then, that the rule of statesmen ceased in the United States and the era of politicians, so inseparably connected with the democracy of America, began. The scandals of the °spoils system° were in some degree curbed by the movement for civil serv ice reform which began in the administrations of Grant, Hayes and Arthur. This salutary tendency was courageously supported by Cleveland, particularly in his second term, and though it was weakened somewhat by McKin ley, it was revived with renewed vigor by Roosevelt and Taft. Even firmer and more extensive is the hold of the spoils system on American State and local government. Democracy in America has, thus, failed to produce that efficiency in the public serv ice which has been realized in autocratic Germany or in democratic England and France. The most pressing problem in American poli tics is to work out a plan for the introduction into the democracy, already won, of the principle of special fitness forpublic service. The great obstacle to social democracy in America — negro slavery—was removed in part in 1963, but this question has been one in which de mocracy has been complicated with the much more difficult problems of race prejudice, and its final solution is not likely to be arrived at for a century. In many ways the show of strength of the Progressive party and the vic tory of the Democratic party in 1912 may be regarded as a gain for social democracy as they were symptoms of a great popular pro test against the domination of American poli tics and legislation by the conservative wing of the capitalistic class, which had become en trenched in American politics as never before, after the retirement of President Roosevelt. Economic democracy seems legally if not actu ally achieved in America. The use of °blanket injunctions° against trade unions, so common in the labor disputes of the nineties, has de clined greatly, and the attempt of the con servative capitalists between 1908 and 1912 to bring the trade unions within the reach of the anti-combination acts was at last defeated by the Clayton bill. Finally, it must be noted that •democracy in Americas is no longer restricted, as it was in the time of De Tocqueville, to the United States alone, but has become an assured fact in the Dominion of Canada and has made notable advances in some of the leading coun tries of Latin America.
Nor is the United States, as it was in De Tocqueville's day, the most advanced and ex tensive laboratory in the democratic experi ment. That position has passed to the Austral asian possessions of Great Britain. Building on the precedent of the United States, Australia and New Zealand have passed far beyond their model in the originality and extent of their ex periments in social, economic and political de mocracy. With their universal male, and prac tically universal female suffrage, their parlia mentary government, their elaborate series of social reform measures, and their original ex periments in attempting to solve the perplex ing problems of economic democracy they are easily entitled to the front rank in the vanguard of the world's progress toward ultimate de mocracy.
These notable achievements, which have been all too briefly enumerated above, have constituted great strides in the direction of po litical democracy since 1800, but they have left many grave problems still unsolved which will have to be met and conquered before democracy can be regarded as finally achieved. The se curing of universal suffrage and representative government has made political democracy pos sible, rather than assured its existence. As Mr. Bryce and Mr. Michels have so well pointed out, the political boss has proved quite as much of an obstacle to modern democracy as did the feudal lord to democratic tendencies in the medieval period. Attempts have been made, which are as yet only partially successful, to eliminate his sinister influence through such devices as the direct primary and the civil serv ice laws. Also archaic forms of political in stitutions have often been found unsuited for a rapid and flexible adjustment to the desires and needs of the people and such machinery as the initiative, referendum and recall has been introduced in the hope of making government more sensitive and responsive to the public will. Again, many of the problems connected with the perfection of representative institu tions are yet to be solved, and to meet this need schemes are being proposed and adopted which embrace the principle of minority and propor tic:mai representation and the representation of professional and economic groups. Then Mr. Hobhouse and others, from the standpoint of political theory, and President Wilson, from the position of the constructive statesman, have reminded the world that most difficult and per perplexing problems are involved in reconciling political democracy at home with the repres sion of subject peoples in imperial dominions. Finally, no one can seriously maintain that so cial and economic democracy are yet fully achieved when such extremes of social and eco nomic position exist as are revealed, not in the 'morbid harangue of the soap-box orator, but in the sober and reliable statistics gathered by every great modern nation. While it is neither probable nor desirable that society will permanently adopt any method of graduating social and economic reward other than that of services rendered, it is a patent fact that prevailing methods of determining the value of services is sadly antiquated and in'need of re vision, particularly in the direction of prevent ing rewards from being inherited instead of earned. It is further necessary to talce such steps as shall be required to ensure that all members of society may receive approximate equality of and equipment for rendering services to society and receiving their reward therefor.
There can be no doubt that the present World War will have a far-reaching effect upon the future of democracy, not only in its reac tion on the domestic policies of the various States involved, but also in the readjustment of nationality and imperialism in a manner more in accordance with the principles of self-deter mination and democracy. While there are powerful classes, organizations and individuals in every country opposed to Germany, who are really much more in sympathy with the German system, principles and practices than with true democracy in politics, society and industry, it is certain that as the gigantic conflict has pro gressed it, has assumed more and more the nature and characteristics of a final struggle between arrogant nationalism and mediaeval autocracy, on the one hand, and modern democ racy and the rule of international law on the other. A profound change in the political and social order, comparable only to that which took place from 1789 to 1815, must be the inevi table outcome.