Democracy Guide, Meaning , Facts, Information and Description
Democracy, like all political and social institutions, is a human invention, a historical creation, that appeared for the first time in the fifth century BC, and should be seen and studied in such a context.A democracy was a form of government under which the power to alter the basic laws and forms of government lies with the voting citizenry, referred to as "the people", and all decisions are made by "the people".
However from Roman to modern times democracy is abusively described as a system in which 'the people' are represented by a few who act by their consent. However representation and democracy can be differentiated. The first democracy had no elections of representatives. The only positions for which elections were held were those that required specialisation and technique, such as leading an army to battle, being in charge of public works etc. Still the body of the demos ('the people') maintained absolute power and could remove any elected person from his post at any time. Elections of representatives was an anathema for democracy. 'The people' voted to make decisions, not to elect others to make the decisions for them. In the first democracy 'the people' did not include non-adult-citizens of the city which meant exclusion of women, children, slaves and all foreign residents. Furthermore a new citizen (a male reaching adult age) was given the choice to either accept the laws of the city and the democratic institution or, without any financial loss or other personal cost, leave the city to live elsewhere.
It is often written that the first democracy came into existence thanks to the use of slaves that allowed citizens the free time to participate in politics (including courts of justice, while the administration was left mostly to slaves) without worrying about life's necessities. This view is considered historically uninformed and inaccurate, as Cornelius Castoriadis explains, since almost all people used slaves long before, during and after the first democracy but did not create democracy, consequntly the use of slaves or the exclusion of women were neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for the emergence of democracy and not helpful in understanding it.
Finally, another interesting insight from the first democracy comes from the law that excluded from decisions of war those citizens that had property close to the city's wall on the basis that they had a personal interest in the outcome of such debates because the practice of an invading army was at the time to destroy the land outside the walls. Clealry, the first democrats understood politics as a process in the interests of the entire demos where private interests had no place. This contrasts with current understanding that the pursuit of private or sector/professional/financial interests are an integral part of the political process. A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot' that finds its origins in the ancient Hellenic word 'ιδιωτης' ('idiotis') meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word acquired eventually its modern meaning. It should not be understood that individualism was unwelcome in ancient democracy; on the contrary it was correctly considered that individualism and personal liberty could only flourish in a fully egalitarian democracy, as the historical record factually confirms.
Under this prism of understanding modern self-proclaimed democracies are representative political systems more accurately described as republics or at worst liberal oligarchies.
In some cases, democracy is associated with nominal monarchy where the monarch has sharply limited powers, but it is more commonly associated with a republic.
This page deals with democracy in its modern sense. There are many varieties of democracy, some hypothetical and some realized.
In contemporary usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. This contemporary understanding of democracy to a large degree differs from how the term was originally defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political regime.
The word democracy originates from the Greek δημοκρατíα from δημος meaning "the people", plus κρατειν meaning "to rule", and the suffix íα; the term therefore means "Rule by the People." The term is also sometimes used as a measurement of how much influence a people has over their government, as in how much democracy exists. Anarchism and communism (as in the final stage of social development according to Marxist theory) are social systems that employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves.
Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament.
Modern democracy can be characterized by the following institutions:
- A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two.
- Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
- The right to vote and to stand for election (also see Universal suffrage)
- Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
- Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
- Freedom of association
- Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
- Educated citizens, knowledgeable of the issues of the day, and informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
Famous viewpoints on democracy
There is much debate on the ability of a democracy to properly represent both the will of the people and to do what is right, but to quote Winston Churchill:
- "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
- "I cannot help concurring [e.g., with Aristotle, inter alios] that an absolute democracy, no more than an absolute monarchy, is not to be reckoned among the legitimate forms of government. They think it rather the corruption and degeneracy than the sound constitution of a republic."
Further, people who believe that any government will do more harm than good (i.e. anarchists), naturally regard the issue of whether the best government is democratic as secondary, comparing that question to "How long is the horn of a unicorn?"
Role of party
Some critics of representative democracy argue that party politics mean that representatives will be forced to follow the party line on issues, rather than either the will of their conscience or constituents. But it can also be argued that the electors have expressed their will in the election, which puts the emphasis on the program the candidate was elected on, which they are then supposed to follow. One emerging problem with representative democracies is the increasing cost of political campaigns, which tends to lead the candidates into making deals with wealthy supporters for legislation favorable to those supporters once the candidate is elected.
Les Marshall, an expert on the spread of democracy to nations that have not traditionally had these institutions, notes that "globally, there is no alternative to multi-party representative democracy" for those states that embrace democratic methods at all. This is not controversial: representative democracy is the most commonly used system of government in countries generally considered "democratic". However, it should be noted that the definition used to classify countries as "democratic" was crafted by Europeans and is directly influenced by the dominating cultures in those countries; care should be taken when applying it to other cultures which have different values and do not have the same historical background as the current "democratic" countries.
Even the form and rituals associated with elections seem to make a genuinely democratic transition of power possible with much less violence and turmoil than if democratic mechanisms are simply put in place to replace a strict dictatorship — many such countries, e.g. Revolutionary France or modern Uganda or Iran, have simply lapsed back into at best limited democracy until the political maturity and education exists to support real majority rule.
Proponents of democracy argue that just as there is a special constitutional process for constitutional changes, there could be a distinction between legislation which would be handled through liberal democracy and the modification of constitutional rights which would have a more deliberative procedure there attached, and thereby less vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. Another common argument is that, in any case, majority rule is preferable to minority rule, and the tyranny of a minority is worse than the tyranny of the majority. In practice, history offers numerous examples of ruling minorities who oppressed a disenfranchised majority, but cases of the "tyranny of the majority" are common. In the United States, conscription early in the Vietnam war was criticized as oppression of a disenfrancised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide and the drinking age was lowered in many states. While no longer disenfrancised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered. Since the end of the draft, the majority in many states has reimposed higher drinking ages on this young minority. Recreational drug users are another sizable minority, oppressed by the tyranny of the majority in the United States, with millions living in fear and/or having served time in prison. "Pro-life", anti-abortion activists have characterized the unborn as an oppressed, helpless, disenfrancised minority. Class warfare rhetoric in the United States, has resulted a small minority of the wealthy paying the majority of the taxes. In both World Wars, the United States demonstrated that a representative democracy is just as capable of overriding individual rights and mobilizing its citizenry for total war as any dictatorship or totalitarian state. While, historically democracies have generally been more likely to be on the "right" side in global conflicts and can be argued to be less dangerous to their citizens and others than other forms of government, no rigorous argument has succeeded in proving them to be "good". They are morally neutral.
There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of Aristotle or the American "Founding Fathers." Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle never used the words democracy or republic interchangeably. See classical definition of republic. According to this definition, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy is referred to as a "republic". This older terminology also has some popularity in U.S Conservative and Libertarian debate.
Modern definitions of the term Republic, however, refer to any State with an elective Head of State serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to Parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered republics.)
Nonetheless, some people believe that there is no system that can ideally order society and that democracy is not morally ideal. These advocates say that at the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. The opponents to this viewpoint say that in a liberal democracy where particular minority groups are protected from being targeted, majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually be careful to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately become part of a minority on a future democratic decision.
While considered by many an improvement over tyranny, this potential threat of coercive power is still cause for concern. For this reason, some countries (such as the USA) have created constitutions that protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or, very rarely, a referendum. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.
As well as constitutional protections for citizens' rights (such as the right to stay alive, express political opinions and form political organisations, independent and regardless of government approval); some electoral systems, such as the various forms of proportional representation, attempt to ensure that minorities are represented fairly and equally in the nation's legislative bodies, according to their proportion in the community. This differs from majoritarian forms of democracy that tend to give legislative power only to the two most popular political parties. This, proponents of proportional representation often argue, results in more bitter partisanship and systemic discrimination against political minorities.
With the dawn of the new millennium, the shape of democracy is being changed. The election process, the behavior of the voters and politicians and other pillars of democracy are being globally reformed.
Journalist and writer Habib R. Sulemani says about the changing shape of democracy,
"Over the past few years in many countries including the US, the vote casting ratio in general elections has been on the decline. In deed, it is a dilemma for those who love democracy. On the elections day, usually people don’t come out of their homes to cast their vote in the polling stations. It has many reasons: Despite a response to the apathy of the politicians (towards their problems) the over crowded polling stations, and the traditional and old fashioned campaigning system are some of the main reasons. Therefore, the majority of voters don’t bother to come to the crowded polling stations. This trend shows the bleak situation of democracy in the cyber age. Democracy needs innovations for its evolutionary advancement. The Internet voting system or ‘e-voting system’ can be popular and attract more people to cast their votes, either from home, office or outside their native country. No doubt, until now democracy is the best way of government. If it becomes unable to meet the demands of the changing world then some other form of government will take its place. Thus accepting innovations is a healthy sign and it strengthens any ism or philosophy." The News Islamabad, February 16, 2004 [1]
This is an Article on Democracy. Page Contains Information, Facts Details or Explanation Guide About Democracy Elections as rituals
Elections are not a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy. In fact, elections can be used by totalitarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. Some examples are 1960s right-wing military dictatorships in South America, or left-wing totalitarian states like the USSR until 1991.Tyranny of the majority
Whether or not there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, majority rule (albeit an indirect form) or its pretense often gives rise to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority," i.e. fear of the majority in the form of elected representatives empowered to do anything they want to an adversary minority. For example, it is theoretically possible in a liberal democracy to elect a representative body that will decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalized (either directly or indirectly). "Democracy" versus "republic"
The definition of the word "democracy" from the time of old Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it be direct or representative. Pros and cons
Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That is, democracy rests on a balance of giving enough power for what Hamilton called "vigorous and energetic government" and avoiding giving out so much power that it becomes abused. Democracy often aims in practice for the "least worst" of alternatives. By creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, by assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. Democracy is related then to the idea of constitutional government, setting limits beyond which a current majority in government may not step.Democracy in the Cyber age
See also
References
External links