What is Democracy - Essay Example

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill (1874-1965) What is Democracy? Democracy can be defined as the ability for people to influence and determine how they are governed by their government. It is meant to be an inclusive process that gives all citizens the opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes, by way of a “social contract”, that a citizen can take part and support their government until such a time that they no longer want to participate. By way of a constitution, or a set of regulations and guidelines formulated by the input of the citizens, a democracy can moderate what the government has a right to do when they govern. For example, that the government in power must allow the people the right to have an election every few years to choose whom they want to govern them. Actively including others in the decision-making processes, by way of debate, discourse and other communications, establishes the social contract. Within a democracy it is the citizen’s responsibility to choose a government, and to participate in constitutional discussions, for example, by way of a referendum or voting. Although democracy aims primarily to include people, rather than exclude them, some ‘extreme’ groups tend to be ignored as to their participation. For example, the homeless, minority groups, the very poor, the disabled and the very elderly. These excluded groups are often paid lip service by the majority, who while aware of their plight, discriminated status, and lack of input, tend not to be interested in making the issues of the socially excluded a priority, as it does not serve the immediate interests of the majority. By virtue of its inclusive principles, and the responsibilities placed on citizens to determine what comprises a constitution and government, a democracy can be considered a more favorable form of government. Comparing Current Democracy with Ancient Greece The form of democracy first developed by the Ancient Greeks is not so very different to the present day democracy as exists in North America. Both forms of democracy required that the citizens had a right to vote, and that the balance of power of a government as a body was determined by citizens. Further, across both forms, it is the voice of the people that is the ultimate determinant of how governance will take place, by whom, when, and for how long. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) discussed the origins of politics in his book of the same name. He suggested that, …it is necessary for the citizens to be of such a number that they knew each others personal qualities and thus can elect their officials and judge their fellows in a court of law sensibly. Critical to the Ancient Greek form of democracy was the existence of the polis or the city state, and that the polis be of a size that allowed citizens to grow in knowledge and understanding of each other, so that elections could be logical opportunities to place men in positions who were most suited to the tasks required of them by the people. Contemporary democracy does not follow this model, as is evident by many Western nations experiencing surges in growth of their cities, and of people feeling more isolated, alienated and unfamiliar with the people they live and work alongside on a daily basis. In this regard, the democracy of the Ancient Greeks appears appealing, as people took the time o get to know each other, and actively participated in the democratic process. They even looked forward to it mostly. However, Plato determined that the ideal polis be of a size less than 6, 000 citizens, which would be like living in a fishbowl, and may have eventually hindered the democratic process by way of social stereotyping, and the tendency for people to form groups, to influence decisions and power structures for their own interests; which would have meant that the Ancient Greeks would have ended up with a form of democracy not so different to what we experience today in North America. Does Constitutionalism Threaten Sovereignty of the State? As no constitution is able to be defined by the very same people actually involved in government, constitutionalism could be considered to threaten sovereignty of the state. It is the social norms of the citizens that ultimately determines and defines how a government is able to represent the people. As such, the constitution as determined by the people leads to how the government voted in will behave. A government should never have the power to be able to overrule the people, or in other words, the constitution. When this occurs the government is a monarchy and no longer a sovereignty. So it appears that constitutionalism does not have to threaten sovereignty, as it is the people which determine how the sovereignty will behave by way of the constitution, or the regulation of what is acceptable behavior by a government and what is not. Ultimately, by virtue of the constitution, it is the citizens that determine what the sovereignty is to do and so, constitutionalism is not a threat. Does Anarchism Have a Point? I do not agree with the theory of anarchism that the state cannot be sincerely legitimate. As the constitution is what ultimately defines what is legitimate, anarchists are saying that what the people determine to be legitimate is wrong. Further, when anarchists seek to bring down a system, any system, it is actually a move to bring down a process or state of being that has been established by the inclusive participation and decision-making of the people. Democracy is about participation; hence anarchism is about not having full participation, which is not in the best interests of the people. Anarchism could be considered self-serving, in that they often want to bring a system down, simply to bring a system down, not to better the well being and lives of the people whom have determined that the system should be as it is. Anarchists are acutely aware that a democracy is never fully participatory, and state that they wish to address these inequalities; however, actual strategies to counter the in equalities that exist are put on the “backburner” by anarchists, and are never actually addressed. They serve simply as the fuel to the fire of the revolution. A social contract, even when there is not an apparent opportunity for the citizens to decide, can be broken, as the citizens can choose to just not participate. For example, the coming down of the Berlin Wall occurred through a mass of people choosing to no longer participate in the system that they were a part of. No bloodshed, just a lot of smashing of bricks and a walking away from what they did not want. Through sheer mass of numbers the people can always overwhelm an hegemony. Anarchism is a form of the maintenance of power of the anti-system, the power is now just in opposition to the system which they seek to overthrow; the flip-side of the coin. Anarchism just wants something different, but at the end of the day, what they offer is still the same thing as they seek to overthrow. And change for the sake of change is not an effort to bring about a viable alternative; the goal is not to have a better system for the people. In general, anarchism leads to worse experiences for the citizens as a whole, as there is no longer a constitution to guide and regulate what is acceptable social behavior. As such, the doors are opened for much worse social and living conditions to occur. With the French Revolution thousands of people were beheaded, in addition to ongoing poverty and starvation and illness. Situations of inequality did not change by way of the Revolution. Another example is the rule of Pol Pot in Cambodia, who put his nation decades behind other nations, by eliminating all those who were educated or who held and maintained systems of knowledge. In his goal for equality by bringing all people to the same level in society, most citizens who remained knew nothing about how to undertake the tasks necessary to enable good things to occur for people, such as social security payments, court systems, health care, and equality of education opportunities. Ultimately, anarchism has no point, and is not in the interests of the people, and this is why I do not agree with it. Read More