Democracy is the best form of Government

Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Abraham Lincoln

Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures
of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions
are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of
the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law.

Democracy is a tender topic for a writer: like motherhood and apple pie it is not to be
criticized. One will risk being roundly condemned if he, or she, points out the serious
bottleneck that is presented when a community attempts, through the democratic process,
to set plans for positive social action. A man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits,
without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind?

The notions of government and of democracy are independent notions and do not, from
what I can see, depend on one another. What is likely required for the masses of people, as
we see in "modern" world societies, is an established system of government. Where there is
a need for an established system of government, it will likely naturally come about; and do
so, whether, or not, it has the consent of the people, -- real or imagined. Putting aside, for
the moment, the arguments of Hobbes and Locke, I believe, on the basis of plain historical
fact, that governments come about naturally and maintain themselves naturally without the
general will of the people; indeed, I believe, with many others I suspect, that our long
established democratic governments in the world (the United States and Canada being
among them) did not come about by the general will of the people, at all; nor is it necessary
that it should it be maintained by the will of the people.

One should not conclude, therefore, that democracy is necessary for good government: It
may not be. What is necessary for optimum prosperity is a state of acquiescence, which, as
it happens, is the hallmark of western democracies. It may be, that the only thing needed is
but the trappings of democracy.

An individual or group of individuals may take and maintain power by the use of coercive
force. From history we can see that this is the usual way by which power is gained, and
maintained. However, it has long been understood that people might come together and
explicitly agree to put someone in power. The best of the thinkers saw a process, -- call it
democracy -- by which groups might bloodlessly choose a leader. That each of the governed
should have a say, or least an opportunity to have a say, is a high flying ideal; but any
system by which the peace is kept is an admirable system and democracy, such as it has
evolved, has proven, in many cases, to be just such a system.

Democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the sovereign
power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the
small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In modern use it vaguely
denotes a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary
differences of rank or privilege. Walter Bagehot gave it a more uncelestial definition: "Each
man is to have one twelve-millionth share in electing a Parliament; the rich and the wise are
not to have, by explicit law, more votes than the poor and stupid; nor are any latent
contrivances to give them an influence equivalent to more votes."

It is from the suffix, "-ocracy" by which we might determine the operative meaning of the
larger word, "democracy"; it is the indicator of the dominant, superior, or aspiring class who
would rule; it is derived from the Greek word kratos, meaning strength or power. Any word
might be added to this suffix, which will then indicate the type of rule, such as: plutocracy
(rule by the wealthy), ochlocracy (mob-rule), angelocracy (government by angels), etc.
Democracy is the rule by, or the dominion of, the people; it comes from the Greek word,
demos. It is often referred to as popular government. Democracy, historically speaking, is
to be compared with monarchy, rule of one; or with aristocracy, rule of the "best-born," or
rule of the nobles.

Whatever its origins (and we will consider 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, viz., 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.

1 - Grecian Democracy:-
The first democracy on record, is that which was practiced in ancient Athens. In his capacity
as a history writer, Aristotle, in his work, The Athenian Constitution (350 BC), writes 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 stylize as society. The Athenian constitution was oligarchical, 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.

"... the method of election in the choice of archons is replaced by lot; some way must be
found to keep the rich from buying, or the knaves from smiling, their way into office. To
render the selection less than wholly accidental, all those upon whom the lot falls are
subjected, before taking up their duties, to a rigorous dokimasia, or character examination,
conducted by the Council or the courts. The candidate must show Athenian parentage on
both sides, freedom from physical defect and scandal, the pious honoring of his ancestors,
the performance of his military assignments, and the full payment of his taxes; his whole
life is on this occasion exposed to challenge by any citizen, and the prospect of such a
scrutiny presumably frightens the most worthless from the sortition. If he passes this test
the archon swears an oath that he will properly perform the obligations of his office, and will
dedicate to the gods a golden statue of life-size if he should accept presents or bribes."

Durant in Our Oriental Heritage continued to write that the head man, the archon basileus,
must "nine times yearly ... obtain a vote of confidence from the Assembly" and any citizen
may bring him to task for an inappropriate act of his. "At the end of his term all his official
acts, accounts, and documents" are reviewed by a special board, logistai, which is
responsible to the Council. "Severe penalties, even death, may avenge serious
misconduct."

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 of modern democracy5.

2 - The Enlightenment:-
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, such as:
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733), Charles Louis de Secondat
Montesquieu (1689-1755), Voltaire (1694-1766), Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-88), David
Hume (1711-76) and, of course the brightest political light of all, John Locke (1632-1704).


--- continue ----

Last edited by Aarwaa; Saturday, March 15, 2008 at 01:11 AM.

#2
Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Muhammad T S
Awan
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere at boundaries of good and
evil.
Posts: 2,198
Thanks: 1,728
Thanked 2,201 Times in 1,107 Posts


continue 1

3 - Representative Government:-
In England, Edward the First, in 1295, with a view to dealing with his impecuniosity, issued
a writ to the sheriff of Northhampton. The people, of all things, were refusing to pay taxes
and they were becoming belligerent. Edward was getting advise to the effect that it might
be better to sit down with the people, or rather their representatives, than to let loose the
royal troops. Letting the troops loose would be an act which would destroy the country's
riches, a share of which the king wanted for himself. Thus, we would have seen the royal
messenger riding out from the king's castle to deliver this royal writ to the sheriff of
Northhampton. This royal writ of Edward's had the Latin words, elegi facis, meaning that
the persons who were to sit on the people's Council (the beginnings of parliament) were to
be elected headmen such as the burgesses and knights, and they were to have "full and
sufficient power for themselves and the communities" which they represent; they were to
come to Council -- ready, to conduct and to conclude the important business of the land.

Now, one of the most fundamental questions of politics - whether of 1295, or of modern
day - is this: Should the representative, sent to the legislature -- assuming, in the first
place, that he or she has canvassed the subject to be voted upon and all the far flung
consequences of it -- vote the way the majority of his constituents would have him vote;
or, should he vote on the basis of what he thinks is right, no matter that it may run against
the majority of what his constituents would like. Edmund Burke, a most brilliant political
thinker, thought that the representative should vote his conscience.

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which
interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and
advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that
of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the
general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member
indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member
of parliament. ...
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays
instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion. ...
The state includes the dead, the living, and the coming generations."

4 - The Dilemma of Representative Government:-
Given human nature and the political process, full democracy, beyond the smallest group
size, may simply not be workable, at all. Each of us has a right to cast a vote for an
individual to represent us in the legislative assembly. The elected person then goes off to
represent all of his constituents, whether they voted for him or not, indeed, whether they
have even voted. How is he to look at issues and how is he to vote (assuming, for the
moment, that he has a free vote in parliament). Should he vote on the basis of what he
perceives the majority of his constituents want, right or wrong; or, as Burke suggests, does
he vote his own conscience, vote as a "better and more informed person" than his average
constituent; or does he, as it seems our system obliges, just vote the party line.

"Representative institutions are of little value, and may be a mere instrument of tyranny or
intrigue, when the generality of electors are not sufficiently interested in their own
government to give their vote, or, if they vote at all, do not bestow their suffrages on public
grounds, but sell them for money, or vote at the beck of someone who has control over
them or whom for private reasons they desire to propitiate. Popular election, as thus
practised, instead of a security against misgovernment, is but an additional wheel in its
machinery." (John Stuart Mill, Consideration on Representative Government.)

The problem, as is so clearly set forth by Mill, is quite aside from the further and separate
problem "that issues at stake in political life are too many and too complicated and that
very many of them [issues] are actually unknown both to the representatives and to the
people represented."

It should be remembered, too, that any decision made and action taken in an assembly of
"our" representatives can be done on the barest majority of a group; which might have
been elected on the barest majority of a popular vote; which majority of a popular vote,
might well, and usually does, represent a minority of the population. How can it ever be
stated that any particular government measure will accord with the wishes of the majority?

5 - Democracy In Action:-
In a monarchy, or, for that matter, any state where rule is carried out by a privileged class
without consulting with the masses in any direct way, it was recognized, at least in the 18th
and 19th centuries, that what was needed was a submissive, a confident and a stupid
people. Such people in these earlier centuries existed in predominate numbers. Sadly, yet
today, even as the 21st century dawns, it is rare, even in the western democracies, to find
many people who are independently working through for themselves and taking fixed
positions on important political concepts such as democracy, freedom and government. For
democracy to work there must, as a prerequisite, be a people educated and be a people
ready to inform themselves of the great issues which face them. Unfortunately, a politically
educated public, this important ingredient to the proper working of democracy, is missing.

First off, it must be recognized, that the country is not run, at least not in between
elections, with the executive checking with the people by way of referenda (as the Swiss
do). However, the people who possess government power and who would like to keep it,
are bound to proceed on the basis of popular opinion; the difficulty is that public opinion
arises as a result of an agenda which is set by minority groups to which vote chasing
politicians cow, a process which is generally aided and abetted by an ignorant press.

"[Proper political conclusions] cannot be had by glancing at newspapers, listening to
snatches of radio comment, watching politicians perform on television, hearing occasional
lectures, and reading a few books. It would not be enough to make a man competent to
decide whether to amputate a leg, and it is not enough to qualify him to choose war or
peace, to arm or not to arm, to intervene or to withdraw, to fight on or to negotiate. ...

When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of
people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made
over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute.
... the public opinion of masses cannot be counted upon to apprehend regularly and
promptly the reality of things. There is an inherent tendency in opinion to feed upon rumors
excited by our own wishes and fears." (Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, p. 25.)

We should never hope or aim to choose a bully, but the elective process will give no
guarantee that the people will not end up with one. Democracy, no matter its
imperfections, is a way by which the people can bloodlessly turn out leaders; but, the
democratic process will only work with the consent of the leaders. The best that can be
expected of a constitutional democracy, the best that can be expected by any political
system, is a process by which the people turn up a leader or leaders which are prepared to
deal with both the bullies amongst us and those at our borders. Hopefully, the leader or
leaders, so turned up by the "democratic process," do not turn out to be a worst set of
bullies then that which might exist in an ungoverned state. If, in the "democratic process,"
an elected leader turns into a bully; well, then, one should not rely on democracy, except
as a rallying cry, to turn him out. To turn out a powerful bully, great quantities of spilt
blood are needed.


- continue

Last edited by Aarwaa; Saturday, March 15, 2008 at 01:15 AM.

#3
Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Muhammad T S
Awan
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere at boundaries of good and
evil.
Posts: 2,198
Thanks: 1,728
Thanked 2,201 Times in 1,107 Posts


continue 2

6 Democracy, Government, and Freedom:-
Democracy, in my view, is only compatible with a free economy; it can only exist, in
substance, in an economy of ideas. Like a fish to water, democracy can only exists in a
total atmosphere of freedom of action; it is completely incompatible with a system that
provides for a governing authority with coercive power. If one accepts (anarchists, for
example, do not) that a government, to some extent or other, is necessary for a civilized
society, then it is to be recognized that the business of governing (as apart from the
business of electing representatives) cannot be conducted in democratic matter. Lippmann
deals with this problem:
"... there has developed in this century a functional derangement of the relationship
between the mass of the people and the government. The people have acquired power
which they are incapable of exercising, and the governments they elect have lost powers
which they must recover if they are to govern. What then are the true boundaries of the
people's power?... They can elect the government. They can remove it. They can approve
or disapprove its performance. But they cannot administer the government. They cannot
themselves perform. They cannot normally initiate and propose the necessary legislation. A
mass cannot govern.
Where mass opinion dominates the government, there is a morbid derangement of the true
functions of power. The derangement brings about the enfeeblement, verging on paralysis,
of the capacity to govern. This breakdown in the constitutional order is the cause of the
precipitate and catastrophic decline of Western society. It may, if it cannot be arrested and
reversed, bring about the fall of the West." (Op. cit., pp. 14-5.)

The notions of freedom and of democracy, we might reasonably conclude, rest on the same
foundations. This is not the case for the concepts of government and freedom: they will
have nothing to do with one another: they work against one another. The principal business
of government is the taking of freedom away from people; it is how government achieves
its ends.

7 - The Press and Democracy:-
To begin with: those charged with informing the public, such as our journalists, should very
carefully examine the "expert evidence" that is thrown their way. Our government experts
must be cross-examined and asked if they have any interest in the outcome? The answer is
that most of them do -- if, for no other reason, than they are in the pay of the government,
as either; bureaucrats, lodged in the upper end of the government echelon; or those
resting in publicly funded universities; or those who are in the social welfare business.

The result of the syndrome is predictable, for, as the public conflict grows, people come to
doubt expert pronouncements. Normally people primarily judge the propositions before
them in a most obvious way, by their source. For example, "Of course she claims oil spills
are harmless - she works for Exxon." "Of course he says Exxon lies - he works for Nader."
When established experts lose credibility, the demagogues take over and we are left in our
mass democracy with groups trying to outshout one another.

"When their views have corporate appeal, they take them to the public through advertising
campaigns. When their views have pork-barrel appeal, they take them to legislatures
through lobbying. When their views have dramatic appeal, they take them to the public
through media campaigns. Groups promote their pet experts, the battle goes public, and
quiet scientists and engineers are drowned in the clamor."

Do the important issues get debated in the mass media? Some things seem to work well
enough without any notice being taken by the public: and, often, these are the most simple
and important workings of society such as family cooperation. In the media, as in human
consciousness, one concern tends to drive out another. This is what makes conscious
attention so scarce and precious. Our society needs to identify the facts of its situation
more swiftly and reliably, with fewer distracting feuds in the media. This will free public
debate for its proper task - judging procedures for finding facts, deciding what we want,
and helping us choose a path toward a world worth living in.

8 - The People:-
I now deal with the concept, "the people": and, in particular Burke's notion that it consists
of not just the aggregate of living persons, but; "those that are dead and those who are to
be born."

"That is why young men die in battle for their country's sake and why old men plant trees
they will never sit under.

"This invisible, inaudible, and so largely nonexistent community gives rational meaning to
the necessary objectives of government. If we deny it, identifying the people with the
prevailing pluralities who vote in order to serve, as Bentham has it, "their pleasures and
their security," where and what is the nation, and whose duty and business is it to defend
the public interest? Bentham leaves us with the state as an arena in which factions contend
for their immediate advantage in the struggle for survival and domination. Without the
invisible and transcendent community to bind them, why should they care for posterity?
And why should posterity care about them, and about their treaties and their contracts,
their commitments and their promises. Yet without these engagements to the future, they
could not live and work; without these engagements the fabric of society is unraveled and
shredded." (Lippmann, Op. cit., p. 36.)

9 - Virtual Representation:-
Edmund Burke was an exponent of "virtual representation."9 The idea is that - those who
do not have the franchise or those who cannot have it by custom or law (i.e., for reasons
such as they are infants; or, indeed, are unborn) -- are, nonetheless, represented by those
exercising government power. When one thinks it through, one is bound to come to the
conclusion that it is pretty presumptuous to strike on a legislative course, not knowing the
degree or type of impact which such a course will have on those generations which stretch
out (we hope) much beyond that time which will mark the current generation's departure
from this life.

In the days prior to 1832, great large populated areas, for example, Manchester in England,
were not represented by a seat in parliament; while little villages, particularly in the south
of England, had a seat, sometimes more than one. While some of the larger county seats
were somewhat democratic, the little southern village seats were totally in the pockets of
the local lords.10 The Great Reform Bill of 1832 fundamentally redefined the electoral
districts, thus came the end of the pocket boroughs.11 Since 1832, Britain (and, thus, in
modern day Canada) there exists a permanent commission on electoral boundaries.

All that I can see of democracy's role is to put into place those people; who, in a very
general way, represent the views of the majority, or rather the views of the party to whom
they owe their advancement. This of course is a recipe for the oppression of the minorities
(no matter from which strata of society they come; and, no matter whether any particular
individual from within society likes the party policies, or not).

"The most difficult of all political problems is to be solved - the people are to be at once
thoroughly restrained and thoroughly pleased. The executive must be like a steel shirt of
the Middle Ages - extremely hard and extremely flexible. It must give way to attractive
novelties which do not hurt; ..."12 (Bagehot.)

-- continue --

Last edited by Princess Royal; Saturday, June 20, 2009 at 04:33 PM.

#4
Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Muhammad T S
Awan
Senior Member


Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere at boundaries of good and
evil.
Posts: 2,198
Thanks: 1,728
Thanked 2,201 Times in 1,107 Posts


continue 3

Conclusions.

-- Is democracy workable? -- Can it work at all? For a free and democratic nation to work, a
politician must, in the first place and right off the bat, in an honest fashion, convince the
electorate that democracy is what they need, if they are to get what they want -- optimal
human conditions for the medium term. The reality of things, with no exceptions that I can
think of, is that what people desire is the soft and the easy; what is needed is the hard and
the difficult (if only to achieve the soft and the easy).

"Faced with these choices between the hard and the soft, the normal propensity of
democratic governments is to please the largest number of voters. The pressure of the
electorate is normally for the soft side of the equations. That is why governments are
unable to cope with reality when elected assemblies and mass opinions become decisive in
the state, when there are no statesmen to resist the inclination of the voters and there are
only politicians to excite and exploit them.

There is then a general tendency to be drawn downward, as by the force of gravity,
towards insolvency, towards the insecurity of factionalism, towards the erosion of liberty,
and towards hyperbolic wars." (Walter Lippmann, pp. 45-6.)

Much is asked of democracy: for while by definition no one within a democracy is to have
special privileges; it, as a system, is to accommodate all groups of people, no matter how
unalike they may be, one to the other. It may be that democracy can only work where the
great mass of people are alike, or at least striving to be alike. This may be the reason why,
through the years, democracy has worked so well in countries such as Canada and the
United States. Historically, the United States (and Canada as well) was the great melting
pot where newcomers came: -- their wish was to be American (Canadian) and to raise their
children as Americans (Canadians). However, there are now signs that democracy in our
countries, as a system, is breaking down. More and more, it seems, there are groups,
particularly in Canada, which arise and are no longer content to strive to stay in the
common middle and share common ideals, but rather they diverge; and, this divergence,
unfortunately, has been supported by government action in a combined effort to hold and
promote distinctiveness of these existing and emerging groups.

Thus, democracy, as past experience will demonstrate, works only where the population
shares, fundamentally, the same goals and aspirations. Historically, God and country have
been the two banners under which the great masses could proudly stand; but, in a modern
society, God and country mean less and less, while, at the same time, the goals and
aspirations of various groups increase and diverge. It maybe that democracy is, and,
indeed, has always been, unworkable; but we must continue to hold the ideal high and see
to it that its trappings are securely fixed in place as, well -- as a bulwark, such as it is,
against tyrannical rule.

The reality is that we are forever fixed with a oligarchy (government of the few)
masquerading as a democracy. The purpose of the ruling few is to execute its constitutional
functions, which, because democracy is unworkable, should be tightly circumscribed. The
ideal of democracy is to be promoted, as it has been, to the rulers and the ruled, as a
sacred icon; never mind that it cannot be used to put a society into action, to pass laws,
and never mind that it rarely will cast up honest and wise leaders; it is, in the final analysis,
a system that will routinely and expensively rotate those in charge; a manner of bloodlessly
changing the guard.

Some famous QUOTES on Democracy :-

Charming Form of Government:-
"Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and
dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike." (Plato.)

Democracy & Socialism:-
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the
difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint
and servitude." (Alexis de Tocqueville, in a speech to the French Assembly, September 12,
1848.)

Conflict: Democracy & Liberty:-
"Perhaps, before going further, I should say that I am a liberal democrat and have no wish
to disenfranchise my fellow citizens. My hope is that both liberty and democracy can be
preserved before the one destroys the other. Whether this can be done is the question ..."
(Walter Lippmann, 1889-1974.)

Conflict: Democracy & Effective Administration.
"The scheme of parochial and club governments takes up the state at the wrong end."
(1791, Burke, as quoted by OED.)

"Democracy is the worst form of government. It is the most inefficient, the most clumsy,
the most unpractical. ... It reduces wisdom to impotence and secures the triumph of folly,
ignorance, clap-trap and demagogy. ... Yet democracy is the only form of social order
admissible, because it is the only one consistent with justice." (Robert Briffault, Rational
Evolution, 1930.)

Herd Confused: The People.

"And what are the people but a herd confused,
A miscellaneous rabble who extol
Things vulgar, and well weighed, scarce worth the praise?
They praise, and they admire they know not what,
And know not whom, but as one leads the other." (Milton.)

Democracy: The High Ideal.
"... we must remember that no code or social legislation, no written law, can of itself
guarantee true democracy and preserve liberty. The spring can rise no higher than it
source. Democracy must continue to be fed from the altitude of the high ideals that
founded it. ... Democracy is a spirit." [Stephen Leacock, Our Heritage of Liberty (London:
Bodley Head, 1942) pp. 60,74.]

Not All the People are Equal.
"The free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice
excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several
states." (U.S. Articles of Confederation, 1777.)

------- ended ------
Democracy

Democracy is that form of government in which the ruling power of a state is legally vested not in any
particular class or classes, but in the members of the community as a whole. it is a government in which
the will of he majority of citizens rules without overriding the rights o the minority. The ideal of democracy
is that of equality, freedom and welfare for all. it involves the abolition of very form of restriction and
privilege. Ancient democracy was based on the direct participation of the masses in public affairs. Modern
democracy is representative in character and it demands not only universal adult suffrage, but also the
active participation of the people in government. Thus, in a democratic state, the acts of the government
are in accordance with the will of the people, since they have the right to elect and remove their leaders
and the right to determine the main lines of policy. Nevertheless, democracy is a matter of degree, and no
complete expression has yet been given tot eh ideal of democracy.
"Our constitution is named a democracy, because it is the hands not of the few, but of many. But our laws
secure equal justice for all private disputes, and our public opinion welcomes and honors talent in very
branch of achievement, not for any sectional reason, but on grounds of excellence alone." These words of
Pericles uttered in the 5th century B.C., still hold good and may be considered by far the best definition of
democracy. democracy is in truth, "government of the people, by the people and for the people." Thus, if
the people of Malaysia rule the people of Malaysia for the benefit of the Malaysians there is democratic form
of government in Malaysia. every citizen has a share in the government of a democratic state. democracy
rests on the will of the people and not on force.
Democracy implies political liberty. Political liberty consists of the right to vote, the right to sand as a
candidate for election, the right to hold public offices, freedom of speech, of association, of worship and of
opinion. All these secure the individual, the most fundamental right of political participation. By giving
everyone a share in the government, democracy prompts patriotism.
Democracy is based on the doctrine of equality. Inequality has been the cause of all the revolutions which
have changed the face of the world. Popular government resting on the will of the people and on the
principle of equality are immune from all revolutionary disturbances. moreover, this form of government
also implies the possibility of an alternative government in place of an inefficient one. These characteristics
ensure the stability of the democratic form of government.
The greatest merit of democracy is that it elevates the character of the citizens. It demands a high standard
of morality and honesty on their part. It provides for the fullest possible development of all its citizens and
gives each citizen, a sense of responsibility. In a democratic society, reason governs the conduct of men
and each man feels responsible for his actions. Here every person contributes some thought or feeling to
the common life. Thus, democracy is not only a form of government, but also a way of life. In a democratic
state, each citizen is an integral and irreplaceable part of the whole. it gives each citizen, a sense of
responsibility. "When political institutions call upon him to bear a part in their working, he is taken out of
the narrow circle of his domestic and occupational activities, admitted to the larger life, which opens wider
horizons, associated in new ways with his fellows forced to think of matters which are both his and theirs"
says Bryce.
The above principles imply that every citizen in a democratic state should have the opportunity to develop
his personality. he must have access to knowledge, must be able to earn an adequate wage. The state must
guarantee him the right to work as well as leisure. It must protect him from being exploited by the well-
placed sections of the community or the privileged class. All these raise the important questions of
education of the citizens of a democratic state. Education must teach them not only to assert their rights,
but also to discharge their duties. It must teach them to think and act freely and express their views boldly.
But, the system of education must guard against making the citizens selfish or overcritical. The education
system must be adapted to suit the needs of democracy.
Also leadership and proper organization are other important requisites of democracy. Without proper
organization, the people cannot express themselves effectively. The leader of the party must be
responsible, honest and courageous. He must be able to think clearly and act boldly. He must have the
ability to judge public opinion correctly. Above all, he must adhere to high principles. An unscrupulous
leader might easily become a dictator and endanger democracy.
Given favorable conditions, democracy is the best form of government known so far. It reconciles liberty
and authority; it imbues the citizens with a sense of patriotism; it is a government by discussion; it rests on
the will of the people; it treats all individuals as equals and tolerates the opposition; it aims at giving the
greatest happiness to the greatest number of citizens in a state. Under the democratic form of government,
human character develops and the individual realizes his best self.
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the
decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equallyeither
directly or through elected representativesin the proposal, development, and creation of laws.
It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice
of political self-determination. The term originates from the Greek (dmokrata) "rule
of the people",[1] which was coined from (dmos) "people" and (kratos) "power"
in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably
Athens; the term is an antonym to "rule of an elite." The English word dates to the
16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents. A democratic
government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a
monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy.
Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[2] are now ambiguous
because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic
elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing
on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a
revolution.[3] Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which
concern how the whole body of eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is
direct democracy, in which eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision
making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens
remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected
representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative
democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that...
Essay On Democracy
(880 WORDS)
INTRODUCTION
THE WORD DEMOCRACY
MERITS
DEMERITS
CONCLUSION
In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because ther are more of them, and
will of the majority is supreme Aristotle
Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state,
typically through elected representatives.Abraham Lincoln described democracy as:
The government of the people, by the people and for the people. It means that in democratic form
of government common man plays the pivotal role. The aristocracy, the land lords and politicians
have to work according to the wishes of the common man. The main object of their political activities
is thus the welfare, betterment and amelioration of the poor masses of the country who elect them as
their representatives and to whom they are answerable for their duties and responsibilities.
In ancient ages it was also practiced in countries like Greece, Rome and Sub-continent. We are
informed of Greek and Roman senators in those times who always dwelt by the majority decision.
This led them to become great nations which were looked upto for intelligence and way of life. Since
the end of cold war, many countries across the glove have chosen democracy as the form of
government. Today most of the worlds powerful countries, international organizations and political
science experts see democracy as a natural choice in comparison to dictatorship.
Democracy is a Greek invention created by some of the ancient Greek city states in particular
Athens. Athenian democracy was a direct democracy. Citizens not including women children, slaves,
resident foreigners i.e., the majority of the population-gathered together to discuss and decide on the
policies of the state. Within this minority participation, equality and freedom was unrivaled. The word
Democracy combines the elements Demos which means People and Kratos meaning Force,
power. In the words Monarchy means rule, leading or being first. It is possible that the term
Democracy was coined by its detractors. Who rejected the possibility of the term was adopted
whole heartedly by Athenian democrats. People in the ancient times wondered if the Athens could
survive this devastating lifestyle. And now around the globe many countries have chosen democracy
as the form of government.
Talking about the merits or advantages of democracy I would say that democracy can provide for
changes in government without violence. In a democracy power can be transformed from one part to
another by means of elections. The jurisdiction of the citizens of a nation determines its ruling
authorities. Moreover, any government is bound by an election term after which it has to compete
against other parties to regain authority. This system prevents monopoly of the ruling authority. This
brings in a feeling of obligation towards the citizens. The ruling authorities owe their success in the
elections to the citizens of the nation. This results in a feeling of gratefulness towards the people. It
can serve as their motivation to work for the people for it is the common masses that have complete
power over choosing their government. Another important advantage of democracy is that the
people gain a sense of participation in the process of choosing their government. They get the
opportunity to voice their opinions by means of electoral votes. This gives rise to a feeling of
belonging in the mind of the people towards their society.
Democracy does also have its demerits. In a democratic nation its the citizens who hold the right to
elect their representatives and their governing authorities. According to a common observation, not
all the citizens are fully aware of the political scenario in their country. The common masses may not
be aware of the political issues in society. This may result in people making the wrong choices
during election. As the government is subject to change after election term, the authorities may work
with a short-term focus. As they have to face an election after the completion of each term, they may
lose focus on working for the people and rather focus on winning elections. Another disadvantage is
that mobs can influence people. Citizens may vote in favor of a part under the influence of the
majority. Compelled or influenced by the philosophies of those around, a person may not voice
his/her true opinion.
While democracy today appears to be the most popular choice when it comes to choosing a form of
government, it brings with it many complications that would be absent in a dictatorship. When a part
is in majority it becomes difficult in a democracy to force unacceptable principles down the throat of
the public. When this is made possible, it leads to outrage. Making bold decisions for long term
prosperity, executing controversial decisions and making better choices for the decisions and
making better choices for the common good can be very complicated processes in a democratic
form of government. In Pakistan sectarianism, illiteracy, bribery system and poor economic condition
have deteriorated our social and political structure. Most of our so-called politicians and law makers
are illiterate. Their pockets are full of money but their minds are devoid of wisdom. The law makers
are the law breakers. They themselves are involved in such heinous crimes then from whom should
we expect a democratic and corruption free government and governance?
DEMOCRACY; THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
Democracy is often defined as ' the government of the people, for the people and by the people'.
Since the main stress in any democratic set-up depends on the people, democracy is the system that is
the most acceptable. Every single individual in the country is part of the process of governing. The
legislature is elected by the people. It makes laws for the people. The executive, selected from the
legislature, runs the country from the people. If he is corrupt or fails in its duty, it will not be re- elected the
next time.
This does not mean that democracy is a perfect system. Democracy also has its drawbacks. It does
not always guarantee the accountability of the elected representatives. Sometimes those who wield
power may be corrupt.
If democracy is to be effective, the people have to be alert. They must continuously keep track of the
activities to those to whom they have given their votes. They must learn to raise their voice against
injustice and corruption.
Democracy is better that the other forms of government such as monarchy and dictatorship. In both
monarchy and and dictatorship, the ruler- individual or group - wields absolute power and the people have
no remedy against its misuse. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no
individual freedom, freedom of speech or expression...
The most important attribute of democracy is that everyone is treated equally before the law,
irrespective of caste , creed or sex. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of worship,
freedom of occupation and freedom to move throughout the country. The dignity of man is recognized
and respected. People are given ample opportunities to move ahead in life.
300 Words Short Essay on Democracy in India Democracy, often described as the government of
the people, for the people and by the people, is globally accepted as the best possible governance.
It is a social order aiming at the greatest good of the greatest number. The idea of governing a mass
of people as per their collective will might sound perfect but it has its own pitfalls pointed out by
many thinkers from Plato onwards.
Democracy is widely seen as people-centered governance but it has also been pointed out by the
political scientists and jurists that it is sometimes nothing more than a rule of the majority, and worse
still, at times it turns into the rule of a particular class of people.
Despite its shortcomings democracy is still our best bet because its virtues outweigh the problems it
brings. Besides, it is the form of governance that best guarantees the most active participation of the
governed in the governance.
There are two kinds of democracy Direct and Indirect. In Switzerland there is direct democracy
where the head of the State is directly elected by the people.
In case of indirect democracy, like in India, the Government is formed by peoples representatives
elected as members of Parliament and such elected representatives choose the Prime Minister.
Similarly, at the State level the members of legislative assembly are elected directly by the people
and they elect the Chief Minister.
In India, the President is elected through the Electoral College system where the elected members
vote on the basis of representation. The Governors for the States are appointed by the President
himself and the elections are conducted by the Election Commission of India.
The basic features of Indian democracy are liberty, equality and fraternity. The freedom of thought,
speech and expression form the corner stone of this democratic nation.