‘the fundamental tenets of the liberal-democratic world view: namely that human beings are and ought to be equal in their fundamental right and entitlements, whatever their achievements and virtues, that everybody should have an equal voice in government, and that popular choices suffices to legitimatise the law’. This statement is taken from Roger Scruton is stating that regardless of ones knowledge everyone should have the equal right to participate in government. Roger Scruton argues that democratic process works for the common good.
Locke believed that government served to enforce ‘Gods rules for living’. The moral knowledge, however is innate so all men can be held to it. He also believed firmly in a democratic system of government, writing that “(w) e have seen that the legislative power belong to the people, and can belong to that body only”. Locke holds democracy at a high regard, as any justifiable government must be of the people.
I personally believe that giving political equality to the citizens would be good, as I believe that representative ‘democracy’ cannot be truly democratic if people do not participate. In elected representatives, representative represent neither the general interest of the whole community nor the particular interests of the voters who put them in office. An example of this is the current climate where Britain acted as allies with America in Afghanistan, which was against the wishes of vast majority of the British population those who were in favour of the government and those who are not. Yet the government did this despite many citizens wishes not to and again the War with Iraq, many citizens are against this and have expressed their views with the largest rally in London which bought together over two million people from all over England. As Rousseau argued that (‘the people of England think they are free. They are gravely mistaken. They are free only during the election of Members of parliament’). I believe that once governments have taken office and have began to make the official decisions of government on public policy, elected representatives are guided by self interest, give first priority to enhancing and perpetuating their own political power and are highly responsive to the special interests and demands of wealthy and influential minorities that can help the elected office holders retain their positions of political authority.
There is a present danger in ‘tyranny of the majority’. In anarchy community where all adult citizens are members of the legislature, it is virtually impossible to limit the power of the majority. Unchecked rule by the majority leads to the majority’s abuse of political authority and the minorities loss of rights, the majorities self interests and governing in an overbearing fashion, deprives members of the minority of their legal rights, there are no institutions safeguards to moderate and restrain the exercise of movement power and prevent the majority from riding roughshod over the rights and vital interests of members of the minority.
Mill and Tocqueville made clear that there were matters over which minorities should remain sovereign, which could not be decided by the majority vote. In this way people would feel secure enough what mostly concerned them…knowing that their decisions would leave their fundamental freedoms unaffected’. In this content balancing democracy would allow citizens to feel free knowing their freedoms will not be effected and thus in turn will not turn to anarchism as the state is giving freedom to the individual rights and liberty which the state has to obligate to.
Theorist in the traditional ‘protective theory of democracy’, started from the Hobbesian assumption that government is necessary in order to avoid civil war and social breakdown and to these ends governments are needed with enough power to enforce order. (Hobbs 1651) but Hobbes paid less attention to: if governments have enough power to stop civil war and breakdown they almost have enough power to exploit their own populations. A government needs power to protect you from the theft and violence of the lawless neighbour, but what if government itself becomes a source of theft and violence? This statement criticises Hobbs for his assumption that only those in government have not got an evil mind. This is arguing there should be checks and balances on government and one cannot totally rely on government as they work for their interest only.
Many would argue that giving too much democracy is undesirable and impractical system of government. When the legislative authority is exercised by the masses, they could frequently make hasty and unwise decisions on public policy. As Plato believes that all men are not created equal. With this in mind he favours an aristocracy of wise and educated philosophers, for democracy in his view would result to chaos and tyranny, to be more specific ‘tyranny by the poor’. as he writes that “when the poor win, the result is a democracy”. This statement by Plato criticises the statement that too much democracy would lead to anarchism as Plato states that political equality would lead to democracy.
Plato stated that only aristocrats are the best people who can make laws and govern but as Scruton argues that aristocrats are only influenced in long-term interest, which will benefit their family name. This was a privilege enjoyed by inheritance in government in the past. It would be right to say that reformation in the House of Lords where hereditary peers are being eradicated is a good thing as it allows more democracy. Which will give more seats to individuals who have earned their place in the House of Lords rather than those who were heirs. The question, which Scuton emphasised in his lecture, was ‘aristocrats’ meaning in the Greek term ‘rule by the best’ how does one know that ‘rule by the best is not rule by the worst’? The discovery that we have voted for the wrong people leads to ejection from office. This is the strongest argument in favour of democracy, allowing citizens to have the right to get rid of their rulers. In this sense this could lead to anarchy as citizens have the power to overthrow government with their own intentions in mind.
Essentially Mills argued if we there was political equality given to all the citizens, ‘human motivation being what it is, in the absence of any restraint, those who governed would simply abuse the powers to appropriate themselves as much of the cooperative surplus of society as they could’. Mill held a pessimistic view of human nature. He assumes that people are rather nasty and need representative body to restrain their tendency to abuse power.
Governments are thought to have the competence in legislation. ‘They can assess the wisdom of a decision only in retrospect democracy is a representative democracy’. So representatives are elected as they have the competence to argue and make benefits for the citizens, safeguarding their freedom and liberty in the process.
In Britain we have an unwritten constitution, which allows government to easily pass legislation. If the anarchist who believes overthrew government, society, can and should be organised without coercive state intervention. They reject the state and its legitimate authority as they feel it impends on their freedom. As Scruton quoted ‘written constitution’ is a good attempt rescue democracy by limiting the sphere of popular choice’. This would therefore make it harder to pass laws and legislation if there was too much democracy handed to the wrong people who are only acted in their own self-interest. With the ‘unwritten constitution’ it would be easier to overthrow the government and make laws and legislation, which will only benefit a minority group, taking the freedom and liberty away from the majority, which is exercised by representative democracy.
In conclusion it would be right to say ‘too much democracy would lead to anarchism’. As people lack the capacity to govern society effectively. I do not hold the view of Plato who favours aristocracy and well educated of only making decisions in government. I do believe though we are not all created equal as some people in society are gifted by parental occupations and social backgrounds which help develop an individual faster than a child who is born from a poor background. That is not to say a person from a poor background cannot participate in government and are incapable of making a decision. Instead I believe citizens are capable of choosing a small group of leaders and even participating within government themselves who are to govern society. Democracy according to its underlying and supporting political theory is superior over anarchy. It safeguards liberty and ensures justice as James Madison stated. This would include holding the government accountable to the electorates through checks and balances. While being impractical to expect the people to govern society without any authority, it is quite practical to expect them to choose societies rulers from among rivals who will be in office until their term expires. I will end by quoting ‘Democracy it would seem has ceased to be a matter of contention and has become a matter of convention.’ (Democracy Albert Weild).
Bibliography:
Barbara Goodwin- ‘Using Political ideas’. Forth edition July 2001
Albert Weale- ‘Democracy’ (issues in Political theory) 1999
David Beetham and Kevin Boyle- ‘Introducing democracy ‘(80 questions and answers) 1995
C. B. Macpherson – ‘The life and times of liberal democracy’. 1977
David Held- ‘Prospects for democracy’ (North, South, East, and West. 1996
Benjamin R. Barber- ‘Superman and common men’ (freedom, anarchy and the revolution). 1971
Jeffery Paul-‘Reading Nozick essays on Anarchy, State and Utopia’. 1981