Democracy is a form of government under which the
power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of
the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law.
In practical effect, this definition generally comes with qualifications and limitations. In most modern democratic nations,
for example, the set of citizens who can exercise these powers through voting are restricted to those who are 18 years of age or
older. A further qualification is that, realistically, in elections, decisions are not made by the whole of "the people," but
rather by most of the people who actually participate.
The term "democracy"—or more precisely, the original (ancient
Greek) version of the word—was coined, and the system of citizen rule invented, thousands of years ago. Over time, the
meaning of the term has changed and especially since the 18th century, with
successive implementations in many nations, a modern definition has emerged.
Real world meaning and definition
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.
While democracy per se implies only a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, modern democracy can be
characterized more fully by the following institutions:
Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule
with minority rights."
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.
On the one hand, Winston Churchill said:
- "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy
is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that
have been tried from time to time."
On the other, Edmund Burke:
- "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."
Burke expressed his view as agreement with Aristotle because Aristotle had
called democracy one of three "evil" forms of government (the other two: ochlocracy and tyranny).
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 political parties
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".
Elections as rituals
Elections are not in themselves a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy.
Firstly, elections have often been used by authoritarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. This can
happen in a variety of different ways:
- restrictions on who is allowed to stand for election
- restrictions on the true amount of power that elected representatives are allowed to hold, or the policies that they are
permitted to choose while in office
- voting which is not truly free and fair (e.g. through intimidation of those voting for particular candidates)
- or most simply through falsification of the results
Historical examples of this include the USSR under the CPSU before its collapse in 1991, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos.
In addition, for countries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone
has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy, until a wider shift in the political culture
and gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government have occurred too. There are various examples, such as
Revolutionary France or modern Uganda or Iran, of countries that have only been able to sustain democracy in
a limited form until wider cultural changes occur to enable real majority rule.
Tyranny of the majority
This issue is also discussed in the article on Majoritarianism.
Whether or not there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, majority rule
may lead to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority". This refers to the possibility that a democratic system can
empower elected representatives acting on behalf of the majority view to take action that oppresses a particular minority. This
clearly has the potential to undermine the aspiration of democracy as empowerment of the citizenry as a whole. 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).
Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses to this. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many
democratic countries acts as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. A constitution (whether written or unwritten) can
ensure a distinction between policy enacted through the legislature and
executive, and the modification of fundamental constitutional rights,
which may require a more deliberative procedure (such as an independent judiciary) and less vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. Another common argument is that, despite these
risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is at all events an improvement on a
tyranny of a minority. In practice, history offers numerous examples of ruling minorities who oppressed a disenfranchised
majority, as well as cases of societies that oppressed a minority of the enfranchised.
One clear conclusion from history is that possession of the franchise doesn't necessarily protect one from oppression.
However, it can provide some defence.
Here are some examples of instances in which a majority has acted controversially against the wishes of a minority in relation
to specific issues:
- In France, some consider current bans on personal religious symbols in public
schools to be a violation of religious peoples' rights.
- In the United States:
- distribution of pornography is declared illegal if the material violates "community standards" of decency.
- "pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists have characterized unborn children as an
oppressed, helpless and disenfranchised minority.
- the draft early in the Vietnam War was criticized as oppression of a disenfranchised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to
this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states).
While no longer disenfranchised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered.
- The majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social
purposes.
- Recreational drug users are seen by some as a sizable
minority oppressed by the tyranny of the majority in many countries, through criminalization of drug use. In many countries, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote.
- Society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context. One
example is the criminalization of gay sex in Britain during the
19th and much of the 20th
century, made famous by the prosecutions of Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing.
- Athenian democracy executed Socrates for impiety, i.e., for dissent. Whether this is pertinent to the dangers of
modern democracies is itself a continuing matter of contention.
Some commentators object to the use of the term "tyranny of the majority" in relation to societies in the 19th century and
earlier. They point out that few countries at that time, including democracies, had adopted universal suffrage. However, others argue that the term remains apt, as the situation that it
describes can occur within the franchised community, even if that community does not extend to the whole population.
"Democracy" versus "republic"
The definition of the word "democracy" from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage,
the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.
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. According to classical usage, the word
"democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the
people govern in accordance with a constitution 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.)
Pros and cons
Traditionally, the purpose of democracy is to prevent the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few. It rests on a balance of giving enough power for what Alexander Hamilton called "vigorous and energetic government" and
avoiding giving out so much power that it becomes abused. Democracy is believed by some, such as Winston Churchill, to be the
"least bad" form of government. 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, and 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 also related to the idea of constitutional government, setting limits beyond which a
current majority in government may not step.
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.
The threat of coercive power is still the main cause for concern. A historical example would be Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany, who was "elected" in
1933 by the German people with the largest minority vote. For this reason, some countries
have created constitutions/laws that protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to
agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, 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. On the other
hand, proponents of broader democracy wonder what gives a small minority of people (such as those who drafted the US
Constitution, or other constitutions/laws) the right to impose their will on the majority.
In addition to constitutional protections for citizens' rights (such as the right to stay alive, express political opinions
and form political organizations, independent and regardless of government approval), some electoral systems, such as the various
forms of proportional representation, attempt
to ensure that all political groups (including minority groups that vote for minor parties), are represented "fairly" in the
nation's legislative bodies, according to the proportion of total votes they cast; rather than the proportion of electorates in
which they can achieve a regional majority.
This proportional versus majoritarian dichotomy is a not just a theoretical problem, as both forms of electoral system are
common around the world, and each creates a very different kind of government. One of the main points of contention is having
someone who directly represents your little region in your country, versus having everyone's vote count the same, regardless of
where in the country you happen to live. Some countries such as Germany and New Zealand attempt to have both regional (majoritarian) representation, and
proportional representation, in such a way that one doesn't encroach on the other. This system is commonly called Mixed Member Proportional.
The democratic peace theory claims that
democracies never or almost never make war against each other. A related but slightly different concept is Rummel's Law, which states that the less freedom a people have, the more likely
their rulers are to murder them.
External links
|
