Whatever its origins, democracy has come to mean a principle or system to which most all political parties of the western world, no matter their political beliefs, would subscribe. It is politics. It goes beyond the periodic act of voting; it is characterized by participation in government, involving members of the community in governmental decisions, allowing them to take part in anything at all which amounts to a public demonstration of popular opinion.
The first democracy, of which we have record, is that which was practiced in ancient Athens. In his capacity as a history writer, Aristotle, wrote in his work that the Athenians practiced democracy only to the extent of putting and keeping in power members of a very exclusive group, a group which formed but a minority in the universal group we stylise as society. The Athenian constitution was oligarchic, in every respect. The poorer classes were the serfs of the rich. They cultivated the lands of the rich and paid rent. The whole country was in the hands of nine magistrates, called archons, who were elected according to qualifications of birth and wealth. These ruling magistrates held their positions for life, except for that latter period when they served for a term of ten years. In time, this Greek notion of democracy was set aside in favour of the draw.
Grecian democracy, however, such as it was, was soon covered over with the murk of the Middle Ages. Democracy's re-flowering in the world, in respect to the rights of the people, first appeared in England with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. A study of an era known as The Enlightenment is the study of the beginnings of modern democracy.
Out of the Dark Ages, in gradual awaking stirs, came the Age of Reason. The enlightenment was fully established and growing vigorously by the eighteenth century. As the shackles of oppression, so firmly clamped on during the Middle Ages, became loose, men sought to apply reason to religion, politics, morality, and social life. With the coming of the enlightenment men began to express their minds; no longer were most all men cowed by the great mystery of the universe, and, their minds, through ignorance, ruled by fears: The Enlightenment was a time when human beings pulled themselves out of the medieval pits of mysticism. It was a spontaneous and defused movement which fed on itself and led to the great scientific discoveries from which we all benefit today. Beliefs in Natural Law and universal order sprung up, which not only promoted scientific findings and advancements of a material nature; but, which, also drove the great political thinkers of the time.
There are a number of various models of democracy that are recognised in today’s society. Democracy has been all too frequently treated as one, single form of democracy. However there are a number of opposing models that offer their own definition of popular rule. One of these is the Classical democracy. It is based on the polis, or city-state, of Ancient Greece, which also operated in Athens. It was significant through its form of government by mass meeting. Decisions were made by the Assembly also known as the Ecclesia, which involved all the citizens. This model of democracy was significant through its level of political activity of its citizens. Plato was the main critic of this model, arguing the peoples lack of wisdom and experience to rule wisely. This view strongly opposed the principal of political equality classical democracy pursued.
Later, democracy was no longer seen in particular as a mechanism through which the public could take part in political life. It was considered a device through which citizens were able to protect themselves from the intruding of government. Its main concern was to create the widest realm of individual liberty. This idea was also presented by John Locke. Democracy was understood as a system of ’government by consent’ operating through a representative assembly. A more radical point of view was held by the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham and Stuart Mill. Based on all individuals seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, the idea of “the greatest happiness for the greatest good” was promoted. Despite this democracy being argued as limited and indirect, it has particularly appealed to the likes of the New Right.
Another model of democracy developed an alternative focus. This was the concern with the development of the human individual and community. This model offers a more radical ideal of direct democracy. Rousseau claims that “no citizen shall be rich enough to buy another and none so poor to be forced to sell himself”. He believed the general will to be the ‘true’ will of citizens, hence acting upon their own nature, therefore in their own interests. This contributes to the virtues of the ‘participatory society’ where citizens are able to achieve self-development by taking part in decisions that shape their lives. However, this model is argued against by the risk of voting results being tainted through the essence of human selfishness.
One other model needing mention is one of Marxist view. It was established on the idea of the overthrow of capitalism, which was believed to be a successful start of a genuine democracy; the so called ‘people’s democracy’. Through this, Marx predicted the ‘revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’. He believed that the ruling class who managed the production was to be overthrown, replaced by the very different system of working class rule. The people’s democracy. However, the main weakness of this particular model is the fact that it was never re-ensured that the leaders of these parties would remain accountable to their original cause, which later had devastating effects in Stalinist Russia.
However, despite the vast choice of different democracies throughout the world, there seems to be a public consensus and acceptance to one particular model. This is known as the liberal democracy. It is an indirect and representative form of democracy where political posts are gained through regular elections, based on formal political equality. It is characterized by competition and electoral choice. Even so, it is met by criticism and disagreement about its significance and meaning. These are presented through different theories by different people. The main strands of opinion come from pluralism, elitism, corporatism, the New Right and finally Marxism.
The main representative of pluralism is Madison. He argued the ’problem of factions’ which was in danger of leading into majoritarianism. Also pointing out societies’ structure by various groups of individuals with various interests, which Madison argued had to be all individually represented through their individual political voice. The lack of such an occurrence would cause instability and disorder. To solve this, he suggested a system of divided government. So called bicameralism and federalism that offered a variety of ways for the ‘minority groups’ to access the government and its political system. This is also referred to as ’Madisonian Democracy’. Criticisms come from Dahl and the Marxists. Both claiming the “unequal ownership of economic resources tends to concentrate political power in the hands of the few, and deprive it of the many.”
The Elitists, on the other hand, are more focused on the rule of the elite, dominant classes. Elitists such as Robert Michels saw democracy as no more than a “foolish delusion”, as they believed that it was the minority of the elites that held the political power over society. The idea of a two class society, “a class that rules and a class that is ruled“. The notion of bureaucratic power was later developed by James Burnham, presenting the idea of the ’managerial class’ dominating all industrial societies. C. Wright Mills contributed to this view with his ’power elite’ which were believed to have the power to shape essential ’history-making’ decisions. In this view, democracy is seen as the ‘rule of the politician’, placing decisions into the hands of “the most-skilled, best-informed and most politically committed members of society.”
Corporatism holds similar views that threaten democracy. Its principle allows governmental access only to the privileged. The ’outsiders’ are denied this. Also, corporatism is believed to threaten the processes of parliamentary of electoral democracy. For example, political negotiations would be made between government officials and powerful economic leaders as opposed to the system of a representative assembly. The New Right regards democracy as protective, seeing it as a main defence from capricious government as opposed to it being a way of bringing about social transformation. In the Marxist view, liberal democracy is argued as ’capitalist’ democracy, run by the minority of the ruling class. Its main criticism is that equality will never be possible until class power is equality spread out within society. The more modern view from the Marxists, Eurocommunists, present the desertion of revolution with the preference to a more reasonable, peaceful and democratic way of achieving their goal of socialism. This therefore infers that, as argued by Habermas, capitalist democracy would be either forced to reject democratic pressures or to risk economic collapse, as well as finding it very hard to maintain legitimacy.
Therefore, in conclusion to what democracy is, it can be seen as quite hard to define. Threatened due to its popularity the term is at risk of losing its political meaningfulness. There are, as mentioned, a number of various democracy models each of which offers a different version of popular rule. The model that guarantees government by people is the classical democracy. Elitist’s idea of democracy is political power in the hands of the rich and few. Pluralists’ democracy guarantees “popular responsiveness and public accountability” Corporatists prefer the idea of various groups taking part in the government. Whereas the New Right point out the potential outcomes of ’democratic overload’ as do the Marxists with the occurrences of tension between democracy and capitalism. Probably the most controversial point in the analysis of democracy within the studies of politics is over how liberal-democratic systems work in practice.
Word count: 2, 154 by: Marianna Elizabeth Holland
This is a more uncelestial definition given by Walter Bagehot.
Also known as the rule by the wealthy.
Also known as the rule and government by angels.
Weale, A (1995); ‘Democracy’ Basingstoke, Macmillan
Aristotle (350 BC) ‘The Athenian Constitution’
Who argued that the right to vote was based on the existence of natural rights – the God given rights that are fundamental to human beings and are therefore inalienable – cannot be taken away.
Weale, A (1995); ‘Democracy’ , Basingstoke; Macmillan
Dahl, R (1970); ‘Modern Political Analysis’. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Ch.1
G. Mosca (1896); ‘The Ruling Class’
J. Burnham (1941); ‘The Managerial Revolution’
A form of deradicalised communism that attempted to blend Marxism with liberal-democratic principles.
Heywood, A (1994) ‘Political Ideas and Concepts’; Ch.7
Heywood, A (2002); ‘Politics; p.82’
