Democracy is Based on Justice - Essay Example

? Democracy is based on Justice Freedom, justice and democracy have increasingly been invoked as important solutions for development in the world. It is believed by most of the contemporary liberals that only democratic arrangements can be just. That in evaluating the status of an individual, one must go beyond income, rights, utility and resources to the actual lives that people leave and the freedom of choice that they are accorded. Both democracy and justice are concepts that are very complex. Justice is the set of principles that major function is the distribution of entitlements, of rights, opportunities and resources. These would include income, wealth and the liberties that an individual possesses. For it therefore to be justice, the individuals to who these opportunities are presented must be several. Justice principally answers the question of who has a right or is entitled to what, in a given set or relative to other people or agents. This is more so, in an event that several agents are competing for these opportunities to meet different goals. In a liberal view therefore, and under these circumstances, a just distribution would take into considerations the provisions of mutual and equal respect. Democracy on the other hand, is a set of collective decision making processes. In these processes, those who belong to a given society or a particular group have an equal say in determining the rules that govern or should govern them. It is what Rawls defines as the exercise of public reason. While the principle of democracy could be operationalized in a varied number of ways, its respect involves protecting the rights of the individuals, their liberties and their freedoms. These rights extend to the right to free speech, the freedom of expression and the freedom of association. It involves the right to let the majority determine who will hold political offices, and what laws will be used to govern the society. It also includes giving every individual, who has the capacity to vote, the chance to make his voice heard. While democracy is the respecting the will and the say of the majority, justice is protecting the rights of everybody in the society, including that of the minority. It is from this that justice and democracy always seem to come into conflict. The rules that are chosen through democratic procedures may fail to align with the demands that justice would propose for the society to appear or be just. The priority of the right over the good is one of the most central convictions of the political liberalisms that John Rawls proposes. It is common for democratic procedures and processes to be carried out in good faith. However, it is not always true that democratic procedures will always have it right when it comes to justice. It is common for the majority to use the strength of their numbers to stifle the voices of the minorities. It is for this reason and to remove this difficulty that minorities usually have their fundamental interests guarded by the provisions of a constitution. In this way, the controversy is removed from the whims of the majority. It is the belief of every liberal society that there are certain core principles that a society must have. Without these core principles, no society however developed, cannot claim that they express equality. Most of these interests typically provide for the basic freedoms, liberties and needs of an individual, including shelter, nutrition, sanitation, education, freedom of movement, bodily integrity, the freedom of thought and the equality before the law. As a consequence, subsistence rights and the liberties of a person place constraints on all the democratic decision makings. That is why if any outcome of any democratic process or procedure violates the provisions stipulated in the supreme law, that process is considered ipso facto unjust. For instance, the Declaration of Independence by the United States, that was adopted by the continental congress on the 4th of July 1776 asserted certain natural rights. It was a justification for a process that the thirteen American colonies felt for the right to a revolution, against an otherwise democratic society headed by King George III of Great Britain. It is well known particularly for the following statement: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This has become the most fundamentally quoted statement for the expression and assertion of justice by people who feel oppressed. It matters not that such oppression and injustice is stemming out of an otherwise democratic process as true democracy is based on justice. Even though such justice may be protected by the constitution, it is sometimes possible for injustice to occur. It is sometimes almost impossible to determine which laws would be considered unjust even when they are democratically legitimated. The balance between democracy and justice is usually tough. Taking Rawls principle, assuming that justice requires wealth and income to be distributed in order to maximally benefit the worst off, and the citizens of a society that is liberal are called to vote on a reform that would ensure this happens, if the reforms pass, there are some individuals who are not well off who may not get what they deserve, while on the other hand, the wealth of the rich will be touched, thus violating their rights. It would be hard to find a way to ensure that a balance is struck between these two concepts. Equal respect presents the society with a sense of what may be ruled out for a just political and democratic system. It however does not show what is indeed required. It is possible for certain matters to fall outside the scope of the protections that the constitution may guarantee, for example the issues that may arise as to redistributive taxation. Given a democratic process, the majority will carry the day. It is for this reason that democracy tries to strike a balance. For instance, the Federalist Paper Number 51 by James Madison addresses the means by which it would be appropriate to provide checks and balances in the government while at the same time advocating for the separation of powers with the government itself. It tries to limit the powers that the principles of democracy may present to the minority interests and the just administration of policies to those who may not be well represented. It states that in order to lay due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of the government, which to an extent, is admitted on hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own. Consequent, each should be so constituted that the members in each department should have as little agency as possible in the appointments of the members of the other departments. It goes on to state that some difficulties and some additional expense would attend the execution of such a system and as a result, there may be some deviations from the principle. Developing the normative principles of agency, choice and freedom embodies the participation of an individual in matters of social choice and public decision making that is an integral part of a just system. This is the essence of political freedom and the core of a democracy. It is the reason why revolutions have occurred in various parts of the Middle East and the heart of the clamors for more freedom and democratic space in several countries in Africa. It is political freedom and the civil rights that allow people to make unregimented and informed formulation of their values in an open channel for arguments and communication. It thus enables proper democratic choice and freedom of speech that are necessary for the achievement of a proper understanding of what is necessary and what the economic needs of an individual are. It thus gives the members of a democratic and just society an opportunity to be able to demand what they value and the attention that they seek publicly otherwise such an approach would not work in the development of human capabilities. In his book, Theory of Justice, Rawls states that according to liberalism, justice is the first virtue of all social institutions. It therefore does not matter whatever virtue is, it is always connected to what we perceive to be the good life that everybody aspires for, The goal at the end of everybody’s pursuit of happiness. He also notes that the rights that have therefore been secured by justice and not subject to any political negotiation, discussion or submitted a democratic process that would water them down (Rawls, 4). In conclusion, it is important to note that any democratic procedure must therefore not consider justice as an aloof and detached consideration but as what the society would invest in, when all the prejudicial views that a person holds are removed. It is a consideration that democratic society that does not perceive justice as a concept that is acceptable and agreeable to all its members cannot be heard to claim to be a society of equal and free persons. This is because, ultimately, the majority wishes for what is best in their interests and so does the minority. This is to say that they both pursue the goals of a good and happy life, which could only be presented in a just and equal society. This is why generally; democratic procedures are constitutive of the truth relating to justice Work Cited Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Ed., revised, Oxford: Clarendon, 1999 Read More