A Cornucopia of Views on Democracy - Essay Example

A Cornucopia of Views on Democracy Democracy is a form of government that has come a long way to serve the people. It was the great US president Abraham Lincoln who popularized the definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. It was a form of government formed in reaction and in resistance to abusive rulers who grabbed power for their own interests. Many philosophers have dissected their views on various types of government such as tyranny in monarchy, with the ruler imposing his political power on society, or the rich having dominion of power in society in the case of oligarchy, or the opposite, democracy, wherein it is the people, the masses, who rule in society. Hence, a modern definition of democracy was established to distinguish it from other forms of government which were not people-centered. The contemporary definition of democracy is: “form of government, where a constitution guarantees basic personal and political rights, fair and free elections, and independent courts of law” (Democracy Building: para.7). This essay discusses how democracy has been viewed from different perspectives by prominent philosophers over the course of history. It attempts to merge their ideas while I as the author give my own views in reaction to their contentions. Indeed, it is a form of government which is most challenging to maintain because of the many considerations and factors that it impacts and vice versa. Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Mill and Kant are philosophers who have taken human nature and natural laws into consideration when they discussed democracy. Hobbes, for one, digs into man’s right to life and survival. According to him, natural laws are governed by the fact that man needs to fight for his survival. It is natural for man to seek peace in his life but if he gets into conflict with others due to competition, diffidence and glory, then he has the right to defend himself in order to restore his peace. With competition, he fights for gain, with diffidence, he fights for safety and with glory, he fights for his own reputation. Thus, although he seeks peace and knows he deserves it without hurting anybody, if he is threatened of such peace, then he can wage war in order to get his peace back. Hobbes also contends that a person’s rights, when renounced or transferred to others, are entered into social contracts, such as when people entrust their rights to a ruler. This means that all persons must mutually agree to transfer their right to a political sovereign or in Hobbes’ term, the state of Leviathan. It is also agreed that this state punishes violators of the agreement to obey the laws of society. The ruler’s power should come from the natural right of people to live in peace. Similarly, Locke believes that man is governed by natural law, but goes further in saying that it is the manifestation of human reason which restricts the egoism of pure self-interest such as having one’s individual peace and liberty, and promoting more sociable benefits. Locke proposes that man has three basic natural rights: to life, liberty and property. When people entrust a leader to these, it should not be absolute but only partial. Rulers are also vulnerable to the temptation of hoarding power. People are comfortable obeying the government as long as their individual rights are protected, thereby enhancing their freedom. Should they feel that it fails to do so, or that government violates their rights, they would feel the need to fight against it to regain their rights. Aristotle believes that the state should cater to the needs of its citizens and does not exist only for the sake of maintaining lives, but more than that, achieving good lives. He believes in communal service, that all citizens should share in the administration of justice and should not encourage one to live only for himself. Those who are self-sufficient and do not need others to survive are seen as outcasts because it is believed that a social instinct is implanted in all people by nature. Since Aristotle highly believes that citizens should possess excellence in order for a state to be perfect, then it should be discriminating when it comes to accepting citizens to their state, as anyone accepted to the fold who may have standards that go against the majority’s may cause instability. Since justice should be foremost in the priority of governments, it implies that it serves the common interests of all and not give preference or discrimination to a minority. Kant explains that all people want to live in accordance with principles of freedom within a lawful constitution, and this entails everyone desiring to attain this goal. If an opposing citizen creates instability in this collective desire, then such a difference should be overruled. It will be more unfortunate if the opposing individual is the ruler because Kant believes he can just seize power into his hands and be a coercive authority. This is usually the beginning of a government’s fall. The beginning of the democracy’s death since power has been seized from its rightful holder, which is the people themselves. Mill is more concerned with the upholding of justice in a democratic society. He has mentioned numerous instances of injustices that occurred all throughout history under the helm of corrupt leaders who were supposed to defend the rights of the people they rule, as this was part of their social contract. However, Mill also believes that the idea of such contract can be misleadingly asocial, emphasizing the centrality of individual will and consent and represents consensual agreement relations and structures of domination about which the people really have no choice, hence, eventually oppresses the majority. He cites the work of Rawls, who claims to be a philosopher of justice, but has not thoroughly argued about racial injustices and racial oppression in his work. Mill may be insinuating that Rawls was a white supremacist, being Eurocentric in his writings, but it just goes to show an example of someone in power taking a social contract from the people who trust him and implements his own interpretation of such contract. Aristotle believes that rulers need to be educated enough to know what is best for the people, since he is responsible for their welfare. He should not concern himself with menial things, as there are people assigned to do those, and if he shares such tasks with them, then Aristotle believes that there will cease to be a distinction between “master and slave”. I believe such a statement is not very democratic, since in a true democracy, the “master” is the slave of the people. Since it is the people who should have the power, then the ruler needs to just implement what is rightful to them. In some democratic countries, the rulers cast aside their pride of being in a distinguished position and actually work with the people side by side in order to fully integrate their ideals into his leadership. The philosophers all believe that the state exists for not only for the lives of people grouped together but for the achievement of noble goals. This was echoed by Hobbes in saying that peace should be sought since it is dictated by natural law for man to live in peace. However, conflict is bound to surface when people want the same thing for themselves, and not entertain the idea of sharing. This is where Locke’s idea of human reason comes in. Since we are not animals who act on pure instinct alone, man should use reason to restrict his own self-interests and be more considerate of others. This is the trait that fosters democracy. Mill’s criticism of Rawls’ lecturing about justice should open people’s eyes to the injustices brought about by the propagation of self-interests through greed for power. So many people have suffered all throughout history from such greed wielded by people in authority. Rulers who seem to have forgotten the basic tenets of democracy, which is implementing the people’s will and not their own. This totally goes against the natural laws as prescribed by such philosophers – man’s desire to live freely and peacefully and in harmony with his fellowmen. For me, democracy embodies human rights in action led by a leader who has his people’s interests at the core of his heart. His service should reflect the people’s natural will to live freely and peacefully, and in consideration of others’ welfare as well. My ideas may be far too ideal for this modern world where corruption and exploitation are becoming so commonplace. However, in the hands and heart of a true leader, democracy can still live. Work Cited Democracy Building, “Definition of Democracy” [http://www.democracy- building.info/definition-democracy.html] 2004. Web Readings from Class Read More