The Political, Social, and Personal Implications of Democracy - Term Paper Example

 THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL, AND PERSONAL IMPLICATIONS OF DEMOCRACY Summary The discussion embodied in this paper is directed toward the concept of democracy as a form of government and as a procedure for effectuating liberty and various forms of rights. The discussion is primarily centered towards the political, social, and personal implications of democracy, which this paper is able to identify critically as having a direct connection to the capitalist system with which democracy is compatible. The corresponding statuses of people in the capitalist system resulted in their commodification and dispossession, contrary to the right to life, liberty, and property, which democracy has initially espoused. The approach used in the discussion is the Marxist approach. (Word count: 105) Democracy: Clarifying the Concept Democracy is a form of government in which people exercise political power. It has been defined in terms of “sources of authority for government, purposes served by government, and procedures for constituting a government” (Huntington 1991, p. 6). Democracy has been a thriving governmental and political concept in the past and even at present, replacing old remnants of monarchy that for a long time, constituted the social and economic lives of people. Democracy has changed how people deal with social patterns, particularly on their awareness of political, economic, and individual rights, which were unknown concepts prior to its conception (Rueschemeyer et al., 1991). The dynamism of democracy has apparently transformed various social institutions such as government, religion, trade, and education. Not only is the capacity of people to participate in political affairs covered by it, but also the reinforcement of their natural rights (Huntington 1991). Democracy has indeed become a guideline on how states can best manage the conduct of their affairs. Political Implications of Democracy Democracy has various political implications. Not only is the concept limited to the functions of the branches of government, but it has also broadened into the aspects of securing individual and civil rights, economic freedom, and social democracy. It contributed to the resurrection of the right to suffrage, which the Athenians initially introduced in their concept of direct democracy in nation-states. Monarchial and totalitarian systems denied this right to subjects. This denial during the pre-democratic society was due to an establishment of an autocratic empire in which the monarch (the king) was considered the absolute figurehead, and all powers of government emanated from him. This system complemented with the growth of the Church, in which a popular maxim proliferated, “the act of the government is the act of God” (Evans 2004). With democracy, a newfound freedom of men and women established a stronger political and social foundation in which the political life of the nation is founded. The construction of a democratic charter in a form of a Constitution delineates the political and constitutional rights of people in a democratic state, securing and clothing them with constitutional provisions, inducible whenever necessary. Democracy has given individuals the enjoyment of various rights ranging from political (right to citizenship, to suffrage, to assembly, to information on matters of public concern, etc.) to personal (right to privacy, to religion, liberty of abode and changing the same, etc.). Women were finally permitted to exercise their right to vote, and found recluse in education from only being mere administrators of the household. Hence, they pursued careers, education, and participation in political and social departments originally designated to men alone. However, we may infer that the political implications of democracy has rested in economic realms, in which linkage between democracy and economics have been instituted, giving way to the prevalence of economic permissiveness and the likewise political legitimacy that permits the latter(Lipset 1959 p. 71). The rise of the free market economy in which capitalists and nations can transport their influx and surpluses to other countries is the outcome of this permission (Downs, 1957, p. 310). We may critically interpret it as the capital’s utilization of the concept of liberty in the realm of economics. Clarifying this notion further, democracy has journeyed far beyond instituting freedom and rights, and allowed leeway for industrialized countries to extend their political influences to less productive states in the pretext of diplomatic economic agreements, which in truth, is the facilitation of production surpluses that need absorption in the capitalist system of production (Held 1993). We may infer that it is also the inherent concept of democracy about the notion of economic freedom that indirectly allowed the rise of imperialism and the economic subjugation of one nation over another in the period of neocolonialism (West 2004). The freedom to enter into multi-lateral trade agreements advantageous only to industrialized nations connotes enjoyment of economic rights and freedom of these nations. Dominant nations have maximized these notions of rights and liberty to their full advantage under a mere pretext of economic democratization, which in truth is capitalist accumulation (Acemoglu and Robinson 2006, p. 83). This has apparently gone far from the initial adage of John Locke on the right to life, liberty, and property, which consists the ideal construct of democracy. Thus, democracy has compatibly, but unintentionally amalgamated with capitalism in the latter’s proposition of liberalism and a free market economy. This is opposed to the notions of state ownership over private ownership, in which those of distorted thinking claim that the former (socialism) is the opposite of democracy, and that the new wave now after the fall of socialism is redemocratization (Schumpeter 1994, p. 172). Waged Labor in Capitalism: An Indirect Implication of the Usage of Democratic Concepts Democracy, in its sponsorship of economic freedom that paved way to the full blossoming of the capitalist class in a commodified society through the free market economy and the construct of laissez faire, has backed the emergence of a waged labor – indirectly, at least. The old economic system of feudalism piloted by feudal lords became totally exhausted by this new system, following the human labor as the primary utilized means of production, thereby making man an exploited being in a social sphere that allows him to pursue right to be employment. The same economic rights allow the capitalist to pursue business and profits in a free enterprise, utilizing machines and human labor as means of production, which are of equal value, thereby impliedly dehumanizing man of his supposed state of being (Fernia 1993, p. 3). Thus, the extent of which the concept of democracy is utilized has gone far as dehumanization of the human labor in the capitalist system, which is one indirect political impact of the concept. Democracy promotes social mobility, of a movement of people from one social class to another. This possibility for mobility, which is absent in other forms of government such as monarchy, is steered by the economic freedom that democracy promotes, empowering people economically and socially. However, democracy has not at all made social stratification among the social classes vanish. Rather, the social division is maintained. Apparently, this condition of dividing men into social strata in the social class continuum suggesting social stratification, is ushered in a social order that ‘optimizes’ the extent of freedom that democracy represents. The capitalist class has derived much power – both political and economic – in a social gamut wherein it is permitted to exercise its economic rights and blossom into a thundering strength of economic accumulation. The result is the birth of the proletariat, the class of industrial workers whose only asset is the labor they sell to the capitalist class (Mayo 1960). It is however, not claiming that it is due to democracy, which allowed for such exploitation of the human labor, but the twisted utilization of it by the capitalist class in the guise of economic freedom, which is the culprit of this condition. It is also important to see how the capitalist class eased up its economic accumulation through democracy as a form of government by positioning itself in the strategic positions of the democratic government. This class, who legislates the policies pertaining to free market and trade liberalization, expands its economic power by its grip of state machineries (Marx 1990). There is thus, a complement between how the political apparatus of the state is managed and how economic policies are maneuvered in order to respond to the economic objectives of capitalist accumulation (McLellan 1979, p. 304). Accumulation by Dispossession: A Political Implication of the Utilization of the Concept of Democracy There seems to be a paradox on the outcome of the concept of democracy, particularly on the concept of “property” on one hand, and capitalist accumulation through utilization of democratic ideals on the other hand. John Locke’s initial maxim of the right to property as one embodying concept of democracy had been distorted by the onset of accumulation by dispossession, a result of capitalist accretion (Harvey 2004). This dispossession is witnessed in the unclothing of the working class of its human labor and transforming it into means of production in order to respond to the growing needs of the capitalist production. Hence, the working class is dispossessed of its property, and in the capitalist production, must remain as such in order that economic accumulation reaches its height (Marx 1990, p. 270). The economic freedom enjoyed by the capitalist class, which in this paper is described as distorted, permits the amassing of profits. In order to amass tremendously, the utilization of the means of production - both variable (human labor) and non-variable (machines, land, etc.) - needs to be undertaken. Hence, in the classic capitalist exploitation, the exploitation of the human labor equivalent to dispossession of man’s humanness is natural (Marx, 1990). Indeed, even the commodification of the human being is one illustration of this dispossession (i. e. when a woman’s body is capitalized on) since the human being is seen as a commodity in a capitalist economy, to which exchange value is expended. The extent of how democratic principles are applied in the economic realm resulted in the distortion of democratic ideology itself, alongside the displacement of the human being to whom notions of rights and freedom were originally bestowed. This is how the concept of democracy has impacted the political life of the human being. The Social Implications of Democracy Democracy has effectuated several social implications, among which are transformation of the statuses and social roles of the sexes from traditional ones, enjoyment of certain rights such as ownership rights, right to suffrage, individual rights, and so on. It has in turn, modified the institutional setting of a once pre-democratic society, and a social order where rights, liberty, and property are nurtured is given emphasis. Democracy has changed the many social dimensions of feudalism, which conjugally tied up with traditionalism. It gave women a whole new role in the social order, from their mere designation to household tasks towards providing them a license to study, enter an occupation, and later, vote and run in public offices. Likewise, society had eventually permitted them to flourish in the once male-dominated occupations and school system. One social implication of democracy springs from the permission of the freedom of the press and of speech, allowing individuals for self-expression and display of individualism. The common cliché “express yourself,” prompts them to assert freely and non-fearfully this individuality, particularly the adolescents who are in the crux of finding an identity and being trapped in identity confusion. This is one social implication that democracy has impacted on the lives of people. Self-expression, being oneself, and doing what pleases (with or without accountability) are attitudes in a democratic environment (Wright and Snygg 1959, p. 106). Lobbying and resorting to mass movements are mechanisms peculiar only to democracy, which other social systems call “abuse of the minority of the people” (Paxton 1985). A citizen can call for a petition if a certain policy is viewed as undesirable or threatening his constitutional rights. He may even exercise his right to assembly and not be regarded as doing an illegal action provided it is within what the constitution prescribes. Hence, social empowerment is one social implication of democracy. It has enabled men, women, and even children - the most powerless being in the pre-industrial society – to raise their voices and speak up for their rights, inducible in a democratic domain, but is not necessarily so in others (Held 1987). Consequently, a politically free citizenship is one positive product of democracy, one that is permitted to invoke its rights and is not afraid of the probable rebound (ideally, at least). Reinforcement of Children’s Rights: Democracy’s Social Implication Children see how their rights are protected in the democratic sphere, that a mere paddling of parents would mean calling the police for child abuse (Nelson 1984). On one hand, this would summon an otherwise doubt about putting the disciplining of children to the hands of the state instead of allowing parents to pursue their mode of discipline. On the other hand, this may be interpreted as protecting children from their own powerlessness, and aiding them in upholding their rights against potential child abuse, even from their own parents. Either way, the concept of democracy has bestowed empowerment to individuals -men and women alike, young and old -clothing them with the protection of inducible rights, and enabling them to fight for these rights whenever necessary. This is one positive social impact of democracy. Commodification of the Status of Women as Indirect Social Implication of Democracy in a Capitalist System The status of women in the traditional society was limited to ‘nurturing tasks’ inside her abode in which household chores must be mastered appropriately and all social permissions directed to the males were denied to her, including the right to education, to pursue an employment, and to participate in political and social spheres. She was also boxed in a social expectation of meekness, modesty, and fidelity. The home was her one and only domain, and her husband (or her eldest son, if the husband is dead) is the administrator of her property inherited from her parents and those that she had raised conjugally with him (Pateman 1980). All these are remnants and reminders of a bygone era, back to a period where women did not occupy a wide space in the social arena, of which some social scientists termed as “exploitation of women,” or some feminists called “a belittling of the capacity of women due to a thriving class society” (Kaneko 1995). Hence, the awakening from a deep slumber came of age when the concept of democracy introduced the notions of individual freedom, of which women were finally a non-exemption. The social expectations of meekness, modesty, and fidelity were replaced by individualism, sense of achievement, career orientedness, and freedom of choice (Held 1995). However, in a democratic sphere that pursues freedom and rights as basic elements of social dynamism, the woman’s place has only modified the already tormented figure. In a capitalist society in which commodity is of prime importance, the woman is likewise capitalized on and is made to fit the requisites and demands of the local and global market. Apparently, this commodification is seen in the utilization of the female body in various lines of products, from shampoos to cigarettes and wines. This commodification is linked to the sponsorship of the free market system characteristic of the capitalist system, which reinforces profit accumulation (Pateman 1980). Hence, the woman’s place has not at all bettered in the capitalist society, but only altered the manner of how she may be exploited. Thus, the distortedness of the capitalist system, to which democracy ushered the concepts of economic rights, burgeoned a new form of women’s exploitation, the woman’s unconscious commodification in the social system. It may be true that she now enjoys rights that used to be non-existent in the traditional society and her social status has altered into one that provides political, social, and economic freedom, but her total emancipation in the democratic sphere is not yet fully achieved. We may view this as due to the prevalence and domination of the capitalist system, of which she is commodified through some facade of deformed and shrunken notions of democratic freedom. The Personal Implications of Democracy Democracy has set forth a clear footing on developing an advocacy for individual liberty in all spheres of human endeavor. John Stuart Mill’s democratic advocacy gave way to its clear-cut implications on individual freedom and set established boundaries for the pursuit of individual satisfaction (Held 1987, p. 79). Again, such is a contradiction of what used to pervade in traditional and pre-democratic societies (Marshall 1964). The individual freedom enjoyed by people in today’s democratic society is a product of democracy. The rise of feminism aiming to acquire gender equality with men in a male-dominated society, the advocacy of children’s rights against child abuse and child labor, and the gay liberation are all direct products of a call for personal freedom emanating from democracy’s concept of individual freedom and right to self-expression. However, the extent of this freedom has led to the permission of online and print pornography, which exists vis-à-vis social notions of personal freedom. Similarly, the internet has thriving websites for porn in which even minors can access if not firewalled by parents, which is an emanation of an abuse of freedom. Children’s exposure to sex and violence is warranted by a negligent mass media (Gasher 2000) and the likewise socially unwitting parents who are oblivious of the potential social implications such genre can cause their children. It may be inferred that a high degree of individuality in the notions of self-expression has threatened morality, ethics, and social values long upheld by people in a traditional society. Some individualists and liberal thinkers regard these as belonging only to the old urn of traditionalism, which have now been replaced by new norms of “morality-free” actions legalized by legislations such as abortion and same-sex marriages. The mass media espouses this, which is also the patron of consumers’ material entanglement for the profitability of commercial businesses. How the notion of democracy is entered into the pictures of morality-free actions is argued in this manner: “We live in a democracy and we do possess a right to choose, in which abortion is one choice. Likewise, we are enjoined with the right to self-expression and opting for a same-sex marriage is a form of this.” A high degree – or perhaps, an excessive degree – of self-expression is one that prevails in the assertion of individualism, leaving behind the trails of humanity, ethics, and social values that differentiate the upright from the wicked, the humane from the inhuman, and the human nature from the displaced nature. (This is a personal point of view). A sociological analysis of a drift in the value system of some liberal, permissive societies points out to the social order as the culprit of this condition (Lipset 1959, p. 97), which in this paper, is how a democratic order can go through extremes if individuals and societies have not been vigilant about it. (Word count: 3,028) Conclusion This paper shows that the ideals of democracy, particularly its embodiment of the right to life, liberty, and property, are utilized by the capitalist system in its goal for economic accumulation. The onset of bestowing democratic rights and liberty to individuals had been coupled with the tremendous exercise of economic freedom by the capitalist class, utilizing the concept of laissez faire and economic freedom. This has thereby distorted some aspects of freedom already enjoyed by individuals and groups. With this, social and personal aspects need rethinking, as well as the political realm, towards one that reinforces the original noble ideals of democracy. (Word count: 102) References ACEMOGLU, Daron and ROBINSON, James A., 2006. Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge University Press. DOWNS, Anthony, 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row. EVANS, STEPHEN, 2004. Kierkegaard’s ethic of love: divine commands and moral obligations. New York: Oxford University Press. FERNIA, Joseph V., 1993. Marxism and democracy. Oxford University Press. GASHER, Mike, 2000. Rich media, poor democracy: communication politics in dubious times. Canadian Journal of Communication. Vol. 25, No. 4. HARVEY, D., 2004. The new imperialism: on spatio-temporal fixes and accumulation by dispossession. The Socialist Register. HELD, David, 1987. Models of democracy. Polity Press. HELD, David, 1993. Liberalism, Marxism, and democracy. Theory and Society. Kluwer Academic Publishers. HELD, David, 1995. Democracy and the global order. Polity Press. HUNTINGTON, Samuel P., 1991. The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press. KANEKO, S., 1995.The Struggle for Legal Rights and Reforms: A Historical View, in Japanese women: new feminist perspectives on the past, present, and future. Fujimura-Fanselo, K. and Kameda, A. (eds). The Feminist Press at the City University of New York. LIPSET, Seymour Martin, 1959. Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 69-105. MARSHALL, T. H., 1964. Class, citizenship, and social development. New York. MARX, Karl, 1990. Capital: a critique of political economy. Penguin Books. MAYO, H. B., 1960. Introduction to Marxist theory. Oxford University Press. MCLELLAN, David, 1979. Marxism after Marx. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. NELSON, Barbara J., 1984. Making an issue of child abuse: political agenda setting for social problems. University of Chicago Press. PATEMAN, Carole, 1980. The disorder of women: democracy, feminism, and political theory. Stanford University Press. PAXTON, Robert O., 1985. Europe in the twentieth century. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. RUESCHEMEYER, D., STEPHENS, E. H., and STEPHENS, J. D., 1991. The capitalist development and democracy. Polity Press. SCHUMPETER, Joseph A., 1994. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Routledge. TWINE, Fred, 1994. Citizenship and social rights: the interdependence of self and society. Sage Publications. WEST, C. 2004. Democracy matters: winning the fight against imperialism. New York: The Penguin Press. WRIGHT, Arthur C. and SNYGG, Donald, 1959. Individual behavior: a perceptual approach to behavior. Perceptual Psychology. Harper. Read More