The adaptability of democracy.
Democracy
The former American president Thomas Jefferson remarked, "I know of no safer repository of the ultimate powers of society, than the people themselves". (www. Peoplefirstindia.org) These sentiments are been reiterated by politicians the world over in contemporary times, all preaching about their will to ensure democracy for their citizens. This term 'democracy' was introduced into the English language in the sixteenth century, translated from the French word 'democratie'. However, its origins lie in ancient Greece, having been derived from the words demos meaning 'people' and kratos meaning 'rule'. (Heywood 99:221) The Athenian approach towards government, was to set up a forum of wealthy citizens to decide issues by means of a discussion followed by a vote, and this is generally considered as the birth of democracy. Democracy can therefore be defined as 'government by the people, in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected representatives by way of a free, electoral system.'(www.usinfo.state.gov)
There exists little doubt that the world surrounding us today can accurately be described as a democratic one, since between 1975 and 1995, the number of democracies present underwent a significant increase from thirty-six to seventy-eight. No less than half the countries of the world are now democratic and at least half the world's inhabitants reside in democracies. Both of these figures are higher than ever previous and in the present rush toward democracy which we are witnessing, democracy has expanded further than its central hub of Western Europe and former colonies of Western European countries. In the 1980's, an astonishing trend towards the establishment of democratic institutions was noticeable throughout numerous areas of the world. In Latin American nations like Argentina, the generals and colonels were returning to their barracks, while the end of the cold war witnessed the surfacing of fledgling democracies in large parts of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It now can also be observed in, Southern European countries like Spain, other Eastern European states such as The Czech Republic and even some Asian countries like Taiwan. (Hague 98:20) Democracy is a stimulating concept, and the rise in the figure of states assigning to democratic practice has heralded a different life for many who now live liberated from political coercion or authoritarian rule. (www.aceproject.org)
Today, democracy seems to have become somewhat of a 'buzz' word, with many political regimes claiming to be democracies, yet none behaving in the same manner as the next. It is not surprising then, that the majority of political thinkers since ancient Greece have been highly critical of the theory and practice of democracy. The united commitment towards it, is a very recent phenomenon indeed. (Held 96:1) In fact, up to and including much of the twentieth century, democracy was considered a negative term. It was thought of as a type of 'mob rule'.( Heywood 99:221) Fears of the unwealthy and uneducated population exerting too much influence on society, were commonplace. Democracy is a very difficult form of government to create and sustain. To look at twentieth century Western Europe alone proves this point, since one can vividly recall how Nazism came extremely close to shattering the democratic ideal. (Held 96:1) However, much of the carnage in the Second World War might have been avoided if the democracies had been more decisive about confronting Nazi Germany at an earlier stage. (www.un.org) Surely the democracies of today have learned their lesson from this.
Democracies have varied significantly from region to region and from one era to the next, in Ancient Greece the people had a direct input into government decisions while today we witness representative democracies, whereby the people select individuals who represent them in government. This was a natural progression when one considers how nowadays, what with population growth as it is, it simply wouldn't be appropriate or feasible for everybody to have their own say on any topic they desire. For example, direct democracy worked well in ancient Athens between 461 and 322 B.C., because it had a population of approximately 40,000 people all within a small geographical region, this is not characteristic of the world of the 21st century. (Hague 98:21) So modern conditions dictate that to try and emulate the direct democratic method of ancient Greece would be highly impracticable.
Democracy does come in many forms, however, the two predominant ones historically have been democracy in its original form (direct) and liberal democracy. As mentioned, democracy was direct in ancient Greece, involving the citizens making decisions without representative institutions leading to much public discussion, which was considered essential, both for the quality of the decision as well as for the need to feel involved amongst the citizens. However, as time has passed, it's become glaringly obvious that conferring with the general public on each and every issue, threatens to paralyse the decision-making process and thereby make a country ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Democracy does come in many forms, however, the two predominant ones historically have been democracy in its original form (direct) and liberal democracy. As mentioned, democracy was direct in ancient Greece, involving the citizens making decisions without representative institutions leading to much public discussion, which was considered essential, both for the quality of the decision as well as for the need to feel involved amongst the citizens. However, as time has passed, it's become glaringly obvious that conferring with the general public on each and every issue, threatens to paralyse the decision-making process and thereby make a country unmanageable. (Heywood 99:226) This is because it's so often the case that the general public don't take a fully extended interest in what is actually going on. Direct democracy is used so rarely now that when it is, the public are usually slow to take a major interest in the topic and this can allow those in power to quickly carry through radical changes to a constitutional system without any rules. For example, if one looks at the recent turnout for referendums in this country, one of the few forms of direct democracy left, it's terribly low, averaging at under 50% in the last decade. This leads many writers to suspect that 'direct democracy' is often a cover-up.
Democracy has developed now into a new form, so to suit the contemporary world. After a lengthy period of dormancy, democracy has re-emerged. This new form of democracy which has come to the fore, especially in the industrialised West, is called liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is a form of democratic rule that balances the principles of limited government with those of popular consent, and elite rule with popular authority. Here in Ireland, we can certainly be regarded as a liberal democracy. Our society is considered liberal because specific fundamental rights are preserved in our Constitution and therefore subject to the protection of the courts. Ireland can be considered to be democratic because the government of the day are chosen by the electorate by way of open and free elections. Our form of democracy falls into the mainstream Western European class, and is aligning with our European neighbours all the more now, due to the ever-growing integration of the European union.
One could argue that it is not true democracy, as elected leaders rule on the people's behalf, and the people themselves are not directly involved in the decision-making process. Some commentators have even referred to it as being a mere shadow of direct democracy. (Hague 98:22) However, the dealings of a present-day state are much too intricate, and the state itself much too big, for direct democracy to be a pragmatic suggestion. Admittedly, the men and women who are directly involved in politics nowadays possess a lot of power. Nevertheless, there are safeguards common to all or most modern democracies to guarantee that they are not capable of mistreating their position.
The first such safeguard is the numerous internal and external checks on the government in a liberal democracy. Such measures ensure that the public are protected from the government and are assured of basic freedom. One method of achieving this is what's referred to as the 'separation of powers' system. This relates to the branches of government which exist in a liberal democracy. It means that there is one body that has the power to make the laws (parliament), another body that has the power to implement those laws (the government or the executive) and a third body (the courts) that has the power to judge disputes and disagreements that may come from these laws. There are variations with respect to how these divisions are defined but all liberal democrats believe that these powers should not all be in the same hands, because that can very easily lead to abuse of power and to corruption. By keeping these powers detached, all these bodies check and balance each other. (www.fnf.org.za)
Other safeguards in liberal democracies provide that political office can only be gained through success in regular elections that are carried out on the basis of formal political fairness. In addition, even if authority is achieved through a fair election process, it's not unlimited and can only be exercised within unambiguous areas, thereby making liberal democracy a form of limited government.
The constitution is another safeguard used to limit political power in a liberal democracy. It preserves certain individual rights and confines the influence of the state and of particular office holders through a set of fundamental laws and regulations. No person is greater than the constitution, and to pay no heed to or reject its assertions is to sever an elementary principle of democracy. The strength of a real democracy depends on the availability of specific fundamental rights and freedoms. These rights and freedoms must be protected to make sure that a democracy can thrive. In many countries these rights are found in and protected by a constitution. (www. aceproject.org) Of all the seventy-eight liberal democracies at present, Britain is unique since it's the only one without a written constitution, instead relying on convention, precedent and trust.
It was this shift from direct to liberal, representative democracy through the development of these written constitutions which marked the birth of the modern democracy. The United States is regarded as the first modern democracy, it ratified its constitution in 1789. Canada was second, crossing the threshold in 1867 and prospects for the future of democracy were significantly improved in the 1870's following France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian war and the subsequent establishment of their third republic. (www. cedemocracy.org)
Such developments were due to the central features which liberal democracy possesses, features that have become the aspirations of citizens all over the world. Historically, liberal democratic states were "liberal" first, and became "democratic" only later. (www.und.ac.za) The liberal rights afforded to a citizen of a liberal democracy are many.
The main one though, is the commitment to fundamental human rights. Fundamental human rights, for example, are the right to human life as well as freedom from slavery, freedom of religion, belief, expression, association, assembly and so on. (www. fnf.org.za) All civil liberties and human rights are generally laid out in the constitution of the state.
This 'democratic' element is provided by the presence of elections, with a variety of alternatives being available to the electorate, through the plain division which exists between the state and the civil society by way of the independence of organised groups from those in power. (Heywood 97:75) Such a presence of competition and the electoral choice awarded the citizens, displays the necessary element of political pluralism, which is the cornerstone of liberal democratic government. The first and most obvious factor, which limits the power of the political elite, is the existence of these regular, free, fair, multi-candidate elections. Each person who seeks legislative authority has to acquire election and re-election at set intervals (perhaps every four or five years, depending on the state). Against him will be standing other candidates, who offer various other visions in the way that the state should be ruled. The fact that the elections are usually by secret ballot ensures that no applicant can intimidate or pressurize electors.
Democratic elections consequently give significant motivation to political elites to practise policies that are likely to be deemed appropriate by the electorate, and not to exploit their power. Additionally, as the majority of the voting public are nearly constantly moderate, political radicalism is not encouraged. Fro instance, democracy and nazism or stalinism cannot co-exist.
Another plus point of liberal democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, is the fact that some issues necessitate specific familiarity with the subject matter and contain information that the public may not be able to grasp without difficulty. This usually refers to issues of a very technical or emotionally charged nature. Full democracy was tried once, in ancient Athens. It achieved its aim of restraining the power of the elites and of giving all interests a say in the government of the city-state. There was therefore, little scope for the supremacy of the state to be mistreated or usurped by individuals or groups. Nevertheless, direct democracy may then place power in the hands of those least qualified to govern. Men of distinction could counsel and influence their fellow citizens, but that was all. Political writers of the time even commented 'how can a man successfully turn his mind from ploughs to politics?' Eventually, it became clear that leader-less direct democracy was inefficient and impractical. The decline of Athens was partly due to democracy becoming unworkable. A recent example of this, although with results not nearly as disastrous, is the referendum conducted here in Ireland at the beginning of February this year, the subject of which related to abortion. Many voters were unable to decipher which way to vote, due to the complexity of the terms of the referendum proposal which mystified the general public, and as a result, voter turnout was low and the outcome became a lottery.
Another advantage of liberal democracies is the opportunity afforded every citizen of age to have a say in the in the running of their country. Although it's not direct democracy, it is a better, more practical solution for the modern world. Direct democracy can only be a success for seminar-sized groups, not countries. For example, if one is to look at India and the United States, the two largest liberal democracies in the world with populations of 920 million and 260 million people respectively, liberal democracy is the only means by which everybody can have an input into government.
( Hague 98:22)
Liberal democracies also thrive to achieve private enterprise economies as opposed to welfare state economies. This gives an incentive to the people of a country to take charge of their own economic destiny. There is a strong belief amongst liberal democrats that the spread of democracy can contribute to economic prosperity, and globalization in turn, can encourage the trend toward democracy. (www.demglob.de)
Also, if one is to compare liberal democratic laws with those of an aristocracy, (which many current liberal democracies one were) it becomes clear that the former benefits humanity more than the latter. Liberal democratic laws are usually inclined to encourage the well being of the greatest possible number of people, because they originate from the majority of the general public. The laws of an aristocracy tend, on the contrary, to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the minority, because by its very nature, an aristocracy constitutes a minority. It may then be asserted, that the purpose of a democracy in its legislation is more useful to the human race than that of an aristocracy. (www. xroads.virginia.edu)
These features are intended to protect minority rights as well as the rights of the person, and they reflect the liberal goals of preserving individual rights and freedom of choice.
A liberal democracy's single raison d'être is to fulfil the needs and protect the rights of citizens who therefore consent to be governed. They must exhibit party competition and political pluralism, a private-enterprise economy, assurances of individual rights and freedoms and a constitutional government based on formal, legal rules. Liberal democracy is the best guarantee invented against abuse of power and the corruption that goes in tandem with it.
Liberal democracy however, is not without its critics, one such criticism being the authenticity of the term. This is confirmed when one ponders that in many of the counties which claim to have been liberal democracies for many, many years, women were not allowed to vote up until recent times, for example, 1971 in Switzerland. This is despite the fact that the country had developed forms of constitutional government in the nineteenth century. (Heywood 99:227)
The tradition of liberal democracy can also be criticized, for suppressing difference and individuality of citizens. Opponents dispute that liberal democracies, with their push toward universality, treat individuals generically and create the single entity of 'the people' instead of a collection of individuals and groups, possessed of differing opinions and opposing interests. Of course liberal democrats would counter-argue this point by insisting it is the result of an attempt to be fair and just, to simply treat everybody in the same manner. (www.cedemocracy.org)
Other adversaries argue that liberal democracy is too restricted, in the sense that popular involvement in decision-making is sporadic and short-lived, being reduced to the act of voting once a year perhaps, as the case has been here in Ireland recently (it's not nearly that regularly in many other liberal democracies). (Heywood 99:225). And some political theorists have argued that in these supposed democratic states, the people aren't really sovereign, because so much power is wielded by political elites.
Another significant criticism of liberal democracy, and democracies in general, is that of the 'democratic solution'. Since it's the wishes of the greater number of people which get their way, the minority rights can be trampled in the name of the people.
Another school of theorists, known as elitists, claim that political elites exert so much control as to make democracy worthless in the modern context. They debate that the liberal democratic governments pay little attention to the views and interests of the people they are supposed to represent, but remain in power regardless of this. They view liberal democracy as, at best, government by one among a number of elites. They believe that the barriers to initiating a meaningful electoral challenge to establish new political groups are extremely high, involving expensive advertising and organisation on a national scale. As a consequence new, innovative and potentially more popular and representative candidates are prejudiced against, and political office is reserved for a small, interrelated group of people with familiar interests and ethics which do not mirror those of the population overall. Of course, democratic elitists would argue that elites are generally more tolerant than the mass public. ( Klosko 00:77)
Other critics insist that because both a middle class and civil institutions are required for a liberal democracy to prove a success, it's pointless for any country to attempt to be democratic until these elements first exist in their country. If one were to look at the newly democratic state of Russia for example, Russia inherited neither of the criteria mentioned above from the deceased Soviet regime. As a result, the country remains violent, unbalanced, and wretchedly poor even with a 99 percent literacy rate. Conversely, under its authoritarian system China has radically enhanced the quality of life for hundreds of millions of its citizens, while experiencing remarkable economic growth since the 1990's.(www.cnn.com) This raises the question of whether or not Russia may be failing partly because it is a democracy, whilst China may be succeeding in part because it is not. (www.theatlantic.com)
The point though being, that in contemporary times, many countries are rushing into democracy with their eyes closed and are ending up struggling even more than they were to begin with. An obvious example being democratic Colombia, it is now more than ever so, an exhibition of bloodletting and corruption, and many members of the middle class are attempting to leave the country. (www.theatlantic.com)
In conclusion, its worth noting that in spite of the obvious blemishes' in some early as well as some present day democracies, such as economic crises, civil wars, wars among nations and other tests of time, democracies have demonstrated an increasing adaptability, might and legitimacy of democratic practice. (www.cedemocracy.org) The theory of liberal democracy is nowadays generally regarded as the one and only plausible or worthwhile form of democracy. It is now present in all of the major civilised regions of the world such as Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. In recent years, it has spread its wings to encompass many of the former communist states and countries from the developing world also. This reflects that there is a broad, even worldwide, acceptance of this particular democratic system and whilst it is not without its flaws, it is at present, undoubtedly the best way forward for humanity.
13
