Professional Documents
Culture Documents
YES
1. Freedom
Democratic states nearly always have freer people than autocratic states. They obviously
have the right to vote for their government so by extension deciding the policy of their
nation and what their nation should be like. They have more freedom of speech and
expression than in autocracies. In particular they are free to criticise their own government.
People tend to have higher morale and a better quality of life when they feel like they have
basic human rights. Closely related is the ability of citizens to pursue economic gain. Unlike
socialist governments, democracies tend to promote benefits to private enterprises. Such
financial opportunity drives innovation and new business development.
OPPOSITION: Except for the freedom to choose the government there is no reason why
people cannot be as free under an autocracy as in a democracy.
OPPOSITION: Democracy does not do very well at representing the people. In first past the
post systems a government may not even have the support of a majority of those who voted
not even including that many will not have votes and many more will not have the vote. This
means that it is often a small minority of the population who determines which party gets in
to government. Once they are there they are rarely representative of the people as they
have several years to do what they like. Yes they need to think about re-election but that
simply means they need to do more that the people like than the people dislike (or else have
a good advertising campaign).
OPPOSITION: While this is mostly found in democracy it is not something that has to be
exclusive to democracies. Autocracies can potentially be transparent and have checks and
balances they however often do not simply because an autocracy often has the time, and
the willingness to use force to prevent these from occurring.
4. Respect of Human Rights
Democracy as much it is understood, is the government of the people, by the people and for
the people. If democracy is put at it appropriate performance, then, all facet of human rights
is respected. The citizens would have the rights to exercise freedom of speech concerning
the well-being of the populace in areas of the economy, education, health, infrastructural
development, etc.
OPPOSITION: -
6. Equality
Equality before the law essentially means that no person should be discriminated against
because of their race, wealth or connections. Similarly, these factors should not prevent any
person from being elected as an official representative of the people.
1. Economic growth
Autocracies are better at big projects, they can get things done and as such they are likely to
be better at creating economic growth if they have the will. In an autocracy there are not
the avenues for dissent that can block building projects, the police or troops can be used to
clear protests that in the west would slow down large infrastructure projects. As a
consequence of this all the infrastructure that is needed to create a modern economy can be
produced quicker and cheaper than would be the case in a democracy. Also the resource
base of the country can be accessed faster (no pesky environmentalists preventing drilling
and mining!) and used more efficiently.
OPPOSITION: This is not the case. The most developed and richest countries are all
democracies. While they may well have been developing their democracies during their
initial industrialisation democracy and the freedom it brings is increasingly necessary for
economic growth once the country has moved to being mostly dependent upon services
rather than manufacturing or natural resource exploitation for economic growth. Once this
occurs then creativity becomes important and the freedoms associated with democracy are
needed to foster this creativity that is needed for industries such as information technology,
creative arts, research and development etc.
OPPOSITION: -
4. Ignorance by voters
Democracy is about given all people a stake in the government as in a democracy the
legitimacy of the government comes from its ability to respond to the needs of its voters.
When the vote is limited, the government often ignores the needs of those who don't have
the right to vote unless they cause trouble. Even if someone is uneducated as to how politics
work, there are issues which directly affect them which they understand very well. Taking
away their right to vote would remove their ability to act in their best interest and have
government respond to their concerns. A person might not know the name of their
representative, but they might, for example, care a lot about the placement of new prison
near their home. Giving them the opportunity to voice their opinion through the
representative they elect or a referendum allows the government to hear and address their
concerns and create a solution which is suitable for everyone, not just a selected few.
Regardless of education and interest level, no single person can know everything about
every issue facing the country. All voters vote with a certain level of ignorance about the
issues. However, by forcing candidates to seek public approval they are forced to attempt to
educate the voters and give them the information they need to make an informed choice,
that way producing a more politically literate population. Removing the right to vote also
removes the incentive to inform the politic about how politics work as well as the incentive
to become informed, creating an even more ignorant society. When the right to vote is
removed, the only way for citizens to effectively petition the government is through
disruptive actions such as strikes, protests, and possibly violence. Disruptive actions can
carry significant costs which are eliminated when people are allowed initiate change through
voting. Having uninformed voters is a minor problem compared to the alternative.
5. Abuse of power
The best form of government is republican aristocracy combined with a degree of
democracy that limits capricious abuse of power. The Founding Fathers in the US basically
got it right. An elite body (the Senate, elected by state legislatures) should be combined with
a democratic body (the House), and the president should be elected by an elite body, which
is in turn democratically elected. The 19th-century system produced better results than the
more democratic system that Progressivism created in the early 20th century. For instance,
real hourly wages havent risen in fifty years (the stagnation began within 50 years of the
institution of Progressivism), and College students cant find decent jobs any more. The
increasing degree of democracy has caused these outcomes because it has permitted the
free play of special interests, ranging from industry lobbies, banking lobbies, the health care
lobby and the legal lobby to the Service Employees International Union, and government
workers.
6. Limitations of democracy
Democracy poses some limits on both of these objects (1) effective strategy and efficient
management and (2) limitation on the threat of capricious abuse of power. but de
Tocqueville observed that it does little to prevent tyranny and isnt very good at being well
run.
QUOTES (NO)
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for
lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not
even by a 99% vote. Marvin Simkin
Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a
democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams, 2nd President of the United
States
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been
found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general
been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death. James Madison, 4th
President of the United States, Father of the Constitution
The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy
was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. John Quincy Adams, 6th President of
the United States
Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order
and chaos. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835