You are on page 1of 6

Democracy

Democracy originated more than 2,400 years ago in ancient Greece. Democracy, which derives
from the Greek word demos, or people, is defined, basically, as government in which the
supreme power is vested in the people. In some forms, democracy can be exercised directly by
the people; in large societies, it is by the people through their elected agents. Or, in the
memorable phrase of President Abraham Lincoln, democracy is government of the people, by
the people, and for the people. In other words “democracy” means “rule by the people.” While
this definition tells us that the citizens of a democracy govern their nation, it omits essential parts
of the idea of democracy as practiced in countries around the world. The principal purposes for
which the people establish democratic government are the protection and promotion of their
rights, interests, and welfare. Democracy requires that each individual be free to participate in
the political community’s self-government. Thus political freedom lies at the heart of the concept
of democracy.

The democratic form of government is an institutional configuration that allows for popular
participation through the electoral process. According to political scientist Robert Dahl, the
democratic ideal is based on two principles: political participation and political contestation.
Political participation requires that all the people who are eligible to vote can vote. Elections
must be free, fair, and competitive. Once the votes have been cast and the winner announced,
power must be peacefully transferred from one individual to another. These criteria are to be
replicated on a local, state, and national level. A more robust conceptualization of democracy
emphasizes what Dahl refers to as political contestation. Contestation refers to the ability of
people to express their discontent through freedom of the speech and press. People should have
the ability to meet and discuss their views on political issues without fear of persecution from the
state. Democratic regimes that guarantee both electoral freedoms and civil rights are referred to
as liberal democracies.

Types of Democracy

The broadest differentiation that scholars make between democracies is based on the nature of
representative government. There are two categories: direct democracy and representative
democracy. We can identify examples of both in the world today.
Direct Democracy

Direct democracy places all power in the hands of the individual. When political decisions must
be made, all members of a polity gather together and individuals cast a vote. In theory, this
sounds like the ideal form of government. There are no intermediaries. Each person is treated as
an equal, and each person is given a chance to directly influence the policymaking process. In
practice, however, this system is hard to implement. Historically, small political communities
tend to use direct democracy. In small towns or indigenous communities where everyone knows
one another and the issues under debate directly affect them, such an arrangement is ideal.
However, once there is an expansion in the size of the electorate and the scope of policy areas,
direct democracy can become unwieldy. In America today, thousands of laws are implemented
and repealed on a daily basis. Applying a direct democracy framework in this type of political
environment would be quite difficult.

Classical theory of democracy- briefly elaborate

Representative Democracy

As political communities change and evolve, so does our understanding of how democracy
should be implemented. The second major type of democracy is referred to as representative
democracy. This political arrangement establishes an intermediary political actor between the
individual and the policy outputs of the state. Through the electoral process, one person or a
group of people are elected and assigned with the task of making decisions on behalf of the
group of citizens that they represent. In the United States, we have multiple intermediaries. Each
state has two representatives in the upper house, or Senate. In the lower house, or House of
Representatives, the number of intermediaries appointed is based on the population size of each
state. It is important to note that while the power of the individual is diminished slightly, political
representatives are still beholden to the group that they represent, also known as their
“constituency.” In the US, members of both the House of Representatives and Senate face
regular elections, during which the public evaluates their performance. If citizens are pleased,
then it is expected that the representative will be re-elected. This repetitive process creates a
relationship of accountability between voters and those that they put into power. Electoral defeat
serves as a deterrent to a politician’s temptation to err from the preferences of his or her
constituency. The creation of the intermediary role begs the following questions: What does it
really mean to be a representative of the interests of a collective of individuals? What if the set of
policies that voters want does not really serve their interests? What should the representative do?
Some scholars argue that it is the responsibility of the elected representative to carry out the
wishes of the constituency, even if it harms them. This is known as the “delegate model.”
Conversely, some argue that politicians are specialists. While voters continue to engage in their
everyday lives, politicians are in the thick of congressional debates. They understand the
intricacies and implications of policies more than their constituents ever could, so in some
circumstances, political leaders should be given the benefit of the doubt. This model is known as
the “trustee model.” The trustee model does not mean that voter-representative accountability is
unimportant; rather, it recognizes asymmetries in information and knowledge that exist between
the public at large and elected officials. One could argue that it is actually impossible to
represent the interest of every voter. Consequently, all representatives are trustees as they must
make educated guesses about what their power base would want and should want. Sometimes
representatives will be right, and sometimes they will be wrong. What is important is that we
place our trust in their ability to make rational and well-informed decisions. The electoral
process responds to a representative’s failure (real or perceived) by most likely removing the
representative from office.

Contemporary theories of democracy- Brief elaboration(refer to readings)

Merits

Democracy is a type of political system that requires a popular vote (representative election) to
take place to elect the leader of the country and other officials. Simply put, the leaders are chosen
by the people.

Many of the most successful countries in the world, including the US, operate under a
democratic form of government. While democracy is noted as one of the most efficient
government systems ever, it is, however, not without any downsides.

a) It protects the interest of citizens


As previously stated, the citizens in a democratic country are given the right to vote on
political, social and economical issues, particularly the representatives they want to be in
charge of making major decisions, such as the president. This can greatly protect the
people from anything they would disagree to occur.
b) It prevents monopoly of authority.
Due to the fact that the government is bound by an election term where parties compete
to regain authority, democracy prevents monopoly of the ruling authority. And, the
elected ruling party would make sure their policies will work for the people, as they will
not be able to remain in power after their term with bad records—they will not be re-
elected.
c) It promotes equality.
Generally, democracy is based on the rule of equality, which means that all people are
equal as far as the law is concerned. Every person has the right to experience and enjoy
equal political, social and economic rights, and the state is not allowed to discriminate
him on the standard of sex, class, religion and property.
d) It makes for a responsible and stable administration.
When there are elected and fixed representatives, a more responsible government is
formed. Thus, democracy can be efficient, firm and stable. Its administration is ruled and
conducted with a sense of dedication, and people under this system discuss matters and
problems thoroughly to come up with sensible decisions.
e) It brings a feeling of obligation towards the citizens.
The ruling authorities owe their success to elections by the citizens, so they would feel
grateful to and socially responsible for them. This can serve as their motivating factor to
work for the citizens, for they have the right of choosing their government.
f) It imparts political education to the people.
One argument in favor of democracy is that it can serve as a training school for citizens—
they are driven to take part in state affairs. During elections, political parties propose their
programs and policies in support of their candidates through public meetings,
demonstrations, television, radio, posters and speeches by their leaders to win public
favor. All of these can impart political consciousness among the people.
g) It helps make good citizens.
Democracy aims to create the ideal environment that is conducive to personality
improvement, character cultivation and good habits. As per the experts, this political
system seems to function as the first school for good citizenship, where individuals can
learn about their rights and duties from birth to the time of death.
h) It allows a little chance of revolution.
Since this system is based upon public will, there will be little to no chance of public
revolt. Elected representatives conduct state affairs with public support, and if they do not
work efficiently or do not meet the public’s expectations, they will probably not do well
during the next elections. Democracy or other popular governments often function with
consensus, thus the question of revolution would not arise.
i) It promotes change.
This political system can promote changes in the government without having to resort to
any form of violence. It tries to make citizens feel great and even provides them with a
good sense of participation and involvement.

Demerits

a) It might allow misuse of public funds and time.


Democratic governments can lead to wasted time and resources, considering that it takes
a huge amount of time on formulating laws and requires a lot of money to be spent during
elections. It is also highly possible that the country will be ruled by incompetent and
irresponsible leaders who will just spend public funds for their own tours and recreation.
b) It instigates corruption.

Those who are elected to power might resort to unethical means for personal interests and
engage in corrupt practices. During their tenure in office, they might take advantage of authority
for personal gains, putting the interests of the masses at the backseat.

c) It risks the wrong choice of public servants.

Truth be told, not all individuals under a democratic government are aware of the political and
social circumstances in their country. In a voting system, majority wins, and there is no
distinction between the votes cast by the literate and the illiterate. People may favor a candidate
based on other factors other than pure and required capability. Taking these things into
consideration, the elected official may not always be the perfect person for the seat, leading to
erroneous decisions.
d) It allows not exercising the right to vote.

Sadly, in some democratic countries, people fail to exercise their right to vote. Perhaps, they are
reluctant to do it or are just less aware about the impact of their votes. Or, perhaps they do not
see it as a privilege and take the process less seriously.

e) It may put more emphasis on quantity, rather than quality.

Another disadvantage of democracy is in terms of providing services—it tends to put more


emphasis on quantity, rather than quality. Also, considering that the system might be governed
by irresponsible and incompetent leaders, equality might be in question for only the rich and
famous might be prioritized more than the poor.

f) It can take long to make decisions.

Because it takes long to make decisions, it will also take long to implement them. Unlike in a
monarchy where one person is making decisions that are implemented quickly, democracy
requires majority voting in implementation, thus it is relatively less prompt in taking actions.

g) It may involve immoral practices during elections.

To lure the masses, election campaigns might involve immoral practices, where candidates
would use muscle power to draw the majority of votes, even trying to tarnish their opponents’
reputation. Money and power may be abused to influence the people to disregard opposing
parties.

You might also like