"Democracy is a beutifully written scenario put on stage
where every citizen takes "role" in, and soon every one
becomes the "role" he/she plays, but him/herself.
A beautiful self-deception." M.A.Erdogan
This page deals with democracy in its modern sense. There are many other
varieties of democracy, some hypothetical and some realized.
A democracy is a
form of government in
which ordinary citizens may take part in governing, in contrast with a
monarchy or
dictatorship. In contemporary usage, democracy is often understood
as the same as
liberal democracy.
The word democracy originates from the
Greek "demos" meaning "the
people" and "kratein" meaning "to rule" or, literally: "the people to rule", which 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, but have no state independent of the people.
Modern democracy can be characterised 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, but to quote
Winston Churchill:
- "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
Edmund Burke gives an opposing viewpoint:
- "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's agreement with
Aristotle is in reference to the fact that Aristotle
called democracy one of three "evil" forms of government (the other two:
ochlocracy and
tyranny).
Further, people who believe, as does
David Friedman, that any
government will do more harm than good, naturally regard the issue of whether the best government is democratic as secondary,
like the issue of how long is the horn of a unicorn.
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 is not necessarily intended to give us "good"
government, but to put some limits to the abuse of power, and to ensure that any bad government can be deposed and replaced
peacefully.
Nonetheless, many people think 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 take care to take into account the dissent of the minority,
lest they ultimately are part of a minority on a future democratic decision.
While a clear 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 super-majority. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority
(which is still ethically questionable), but 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 PR often argue, results in more bitter partisanship and systemic discrimination against
political minorities.
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 he then is supposed to follow. One emerging problem with representative
democracies is the increasing cost of political campaigns which lends the candidates to making deals with well heeled 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 that are tribal
in nature and do not have the same historical background as the current "democratic" countries.
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 dicatorships in South America,
left-wing totalitarian states like the USSR until 1991.
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.
Tyranny of the majority
When there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, but also on some issues with only a few elite voters, majority rule often
gives rise to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority," i.e. fear of a majority empowered to do anything it wanted
to an adversary minority. For example, it is theoretically possible for a majority to vote that a certain religion should be
criminalized, and its members punished with death.
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 direct 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.
"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.
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
classic 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.)
See also
