Modern Democracy as a Form of Government - Essay Example

MODERN DEMOCRACY AS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT 2006 MODERN DEMOCRACY AS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT Is modern democracy the best form of government This question is relevant for many politicians and people interested in politics. To make the best conclusion for us we have to study what is democracy in itself and where this term comes from. There are some meanings of the term "democracy". As is well known, "democracy" is taken from Greek word which means "government of the people, by the people and for the people." "demos" means people, and "cratos" means government. This is the meaning of the word (the nominal definition), but the concept to which the word corresponds (the real definition), has been evaluated or developed through history (De Torre, 1997). The term "democracy" has been claimed by both the capitalist world and the socialist world. To take for example the former East Germany that called itself German Democratic Republic and Viet Nam likewise. The first Russian marxist party that was set up by Lenin in exile, in preparation for the revolution against the czarist regime, had the name of Russian Social Democratic Workers Party. Later it changed its name to Russian Communist Party, and after the split of 1903 with Plekhanov, to Bolshevik Party. Lenin insisted on that real democracy would come only through the great revolution, which leads to the State socialism of the "dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally to the classless communist society. He blamed "bourgeois democracies" of being false democracies, in which parliament seats were systematically bought by the richest bidder, thus perpetuating the status qua of the propertied class-a statement which, incidentally, is an unwarranted generalization. So we can see that even the communists have employed the terms "democracy" and "republic" with an obviously different meaning as compared to their Western usage. In order to clear up the meaning of the concepts, it is necessary to have a look at their historical development ever since the origin of the terms in ancient Greece and Rome. (De Torre, 1997). The word "democracy" is of Greek origin, "republic" is Latin word which means "the public thing": res publi. The concept, however is taken from the Greek polis, which means group of men living and working together, and politeia, which means that this group gathered into "public thing" or commonwealth or commonweal by means of laws guiding towards the common good. Thus, through the work of logos (reason) on physis (nature), society came out from jungle to civilization, from herds to communities, from chaos or disorder to cosmos or order, as man stopped to behave like an animal, guided only by his sensitive feelings and emotions, and learns to guide himself instead by his reason and free will (De Torre, 1997). Modern scientists such as Robert Dahl, Anthony Arblaster, Benjamin Barber, Andrew Heywood and many others have their own, new view on democracy today. There are several models of modern democracy described in works of these authors. According to Professor Robert Dahl, one of the most prominent democratic theorists of nowadays, modern democracy has four historical sources: the direct democracy in ancient Greece, the republicanism of Roman and Italian city-states in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the theory and practice of representative government, and the idea of political equality. The democratic transformation occurred in Greece in the 5th century BC.So as Greece was not a single country, but consisted of a number independent cities-polices Athens was described as having the most innovative and sophisticated democracy (Dahl, 1989). Political ideals and aims of the classical Athenian democracy were expressed by the outstanding Greek philosopher Aristotle in The Politics dated between 335 and 323 BC. Aristotle identifies liberty as one of the founding principles of the classical democratic constitution. The philosopher argues that liberty has two major aspects, namely: 1) ruling and being ruled in turn; 2) living as one chooses (Aristotle, 1984) So we can say that, liberty and equality are inseparable linked." In fact, the first element of liberty, "ruling and being ruled in turn," is based on a fundamental conception of equality, which Aristotle labels as "numerical equality" (as opposed to "equality based on merit"). "Numerical equality" means an equal share of the practice of ruling for all, regardless of individual ability, merit or wealth. "Thus understood, equality is the practical basis of liberty. It is also the moral basis of liberty" (Held, 1996). The ideals of Athenian democracy - equality among citizens, liberty, and respect for the law and justice - have had great influence in the Western political thought, "although there are some central ideas, for instance, the modern liberal notion that human beings are 'individuals' with 'rights,' that notably cannot be directly traced to Athens." (David Held, 1996) Taking into consideration the above political ideas we can examine the main aspects of the classical democracy. According to Professor David Held (1996), the Athenian democracy had the following institutional features. First, Assembly of citizens had sovereign power, that is, supreme authority, to engage in legislative and judicial functions. The citizenry as a whole formed the Assembly, which consists of each and every citizen of Athens. The Assembly met more than 40 times a year, and it had a quorum of 6,000 citizens. The Athenian concept of "citizenship" entailed taking a share in legislative and judicial functions, participating directly in the affairs of the state. That is why the classical Greek democracy is called "direct democracy." In Andrew's Heywood (2004) book "Political Theory" we can find some other definitions that can be useful. For example: "democracy as government of the people, by people and for the people, although 'the people' have been conceived in different ways. Direct democracy as popular self-government, distinguished from representative democracy as indirect democracy operating through election. Also he gives definition where he speaks about protective democracy: "Protective democracy as a form of democracy in which consent is used to protect citizens from the encroachment of government. Then goes "developmental democracy as a form of democracy which aims to broaden popular participation for both individual and wider social" (Heywood, 2004). He has his own point of view on liberal democracy and says that it is the dominant real-world democratic model, based on electoral competition and a clear distinction between the state and civil society. And there are some other different views on it as he says.1) "The pluralist view of liberal democracy as open competition amongst competing groups, ensuring a wide dispersal of political power. 2) The elitist view of liberal democracy as rule by the few, whether a coherent or a fractured elite. 3) The corporatist view of liberal democracy as the incorporation of major interests and particularly key economic groups into the processes of government. 4) The New Right view of liberal democracy as a warning against 'democratic overload': the paralysis of a political system subjected to unrestrained group and electoral pressures. 5) The Marxist view of liberal democracy as a sham that protects bourgeois class interests behind a facade of popular control and political equality"(Heywood, 2004). Robert Dahl (1998) adopts an international look on democracy. He also spends much attention on definition what a "democracy" is - not on the level of governing cities and nations, but simply in terms of how one might make decisions in a small organization or assembly so as to give all members an equal voice. The most interesting thing about his definition is that it makes no reference at all to representative government, an idea that underlies every democratic system "from the New Haven Board of Aldermen to the British House of Commons" (Dahl, 1998). Instead, Dahl discovers the problem with an unusual simplicity, his main condition for democracy, on which everything else rests, is political equality. According to Dahl, a state is a democracy only when it allows suffrage and includes everyone in the decision-making process. He says that that democracy cannot actually exist anywhere until women won the vote. To give everyone an equal voice is a simple goal, but it is also shifty. For example, Dahl argues that if everyone's votes count equally but a few elites control what goes on the agenda, democracy has not been fully realized. And equal access to decision-making by itself is not enough-all must have enough information to make competent choices (Dahl, 1989). Also Dahl explores the connection between capitalism and democracy in some detail, though generally with the developing world. The connection between democracy and capitalism, he proves, is more complicated than the standard wisdom that hand in hand with development progresses. The free market does lean towards to create a constituency for personal freedoms, which helps democracy to develop. And it works in reverse: the transparency and accountability of democratic systems tends to reduce the corruption that might otherwise stop a capitalist economy (Dahl, 1998). It is clear that democracy have changed its form through ages. Modern democracy, of course, differs from the initial value. It is no doubt that democracy is the best form of government, but also it has its own defects and weaknesses. "Democracy, the control of the direction of government and the granting of its authority by the people, needs to be actively watched and defended. Special interest groups and single-issue lobbies (as well as parties) can, through their hearty activism, undermine democracy by giving certain an out-of-proportion focus at the expense of general good governance. Large multinational companies are able to manipulate and ignore local governments, which sometimes places them above-the-law" says Crabtree Vexen. "Stupidity of mass and voter apathy means that the people normally vote (if they vote at all) on short-sighted, shallow and unimportant issues, which reduces the ability of government to make required sacrifces to overcome long-term problems. If the people vote on good-sounding but shallow policies, only good-sounding but shallow (short-term) parties will be elected. This is potentially disasterous and represents the biggest threat to democracy" (Vexen, 2006). Also the author propose solution to these threats and to overcome this problem of mass stupidity and ignorance meritocratic systems must be tested and realized in addition to tried-and-tested methods of political revitalisation and public education. So to make democracy more strong and to make it the best form of government is to grant human rights and protect them against corruptions and government abuse. At the end it is the responsibility for developed stable democratic countries to help the ruling government of other countries to make the democracy clear and limpid, and for international institutions to declare and defend clear universal Human Rights. Bibliography: 1. Aristotle, The Politics, The University of Chicago Press, 1984 2. Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and Its Critiques, Yale University Press, 1989 3. Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy, Yale University Press.1998 4. De Torre, Fr. Joseph . Philosophical and Historical Analysis of Modern Democracy Equality, and Freedom Under the Influence of Christianity, Prentice Hall 1997 5. Held, D. Models of Democracy, Second Edition, Stanford University Press, 1996 6. Heywood, A. Political Theory. An Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004 (3rd edition): pp.68-83. 7. Vexen, Crabtree. Democracy, Its Foundations and Modern Challenges, Nov 16, 2006 Read More