Is Winston Churchill's Definition of Democracy Correct - Essay Example

IS WINSTON CHURCHILL’S DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY CORRECT? Democracy as a form of government has been a controversial that has spawned manydebates about its capability to effectively represent the people of a country while making sure to do what is right and proper (Politicsdefined.com). History reveals that many forms of governments have been tried in many countries with different results, but all with the same underlying problem, namely, they just could not meet the expectations of people craving for individual rights and liberty, two crucial issues that have caused the failure of the various forms of governments time and time again. These two vital requirements can only be provided by democracy. Therefore, while all the other forms of government have ultimately been repudiated, democracy has not only survived the test of time but it has come out indisputably on top. Viewpoints of 3 famous personalities are worthy of consideration. The famous Greek philosopher Aristotle vilified Democracy as on among three ‘evil’ forms of government {the others being Ochlocracy and Tyranny}. Noted British statesman Edmund Burke said democracy is not fit to be “reckoned among the legitimate forms of government,” as it generates “corruption and degeneracy” instead of creating a “sound constitution of a republic.” World War II era British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously defined democracy as the “worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried” (Politicsdefined.com). Aristotle and Burke’s negative viewpoints of democracy are contrasted against Churchill’s definition. While constituting a unique back-handed compliment to democracy, Churchill considers it ‘not the worst of, or worst among’ other governmental forms, but ‘worst except for other forms of government,’ clearly meaning democracy is the ‘best among all the other types of governments.’ By adding the words ‘that have been tried’, Churchill is referring to the superiority of democracy to the other forms of government that were prevailing during his time in office as British Prime Minister. These forms are: Republic {the U.S. had a Republic form of government under President Franklin Roosevelt}, Monarchy {such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, ruled by Ahmed Al Jaber Al Sabah and Abdul-Aziz Bin Saud respectively}, Theocracy {the Vatican under Pope Pius XII}, Communism {practised by the governments of the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin and China under Mao Tse Tung}, Dictatorship {best exemplified by Adolf Hitler of Germany} and the Fascist type of government {as seen in Italy under Benito Mussolini}. 1. Democratic form of government Democracy has been famously defined by former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln as a rule “by the people, of the people and for the people.” During Churchill’s time, democracy was largely in the same situation as it is now, basically a self-government chosen by the people. Under democracy, human beings are free, equal and independent (Wolff, 35). Democracy has certain unique characteristics such as ‘majority rule with minority rights’ {although decisions are taken when the majority of voters gives its approval, the majority accepts the right of the minority to try and gain majority status by legal means} (Politicsdefined.com); in fact, democracy insists on protection of minorities (Wolff, 65), free elections {citizens vote and elect their representatives, putting forward their own views on various issues through those representatives}, rights {the nation’s Constitution guarantees citizens rights such as freedom of religious worship, freedom of press, freedom of association (Politicsdefined.com), freedom of speech, right to run for public office (Wolff, 174) and so on}, and controls on power {national governing power is divided between a central/federal government and state/provincial governments} (Politicsdefined.com). The last quarter of the 20th century has witnessed a definitive and impressive resurgence of democracy in the world (Grier) especially among Latin American countries (Diamond et al. 1). The reason for its popularity, according to professor Michael Mandelbaum of the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, is its unique ‘fusion of voting and individual liberty’ (Grier). 2. Republic form of government Unlike ancient times {best exemplified by the Roman Republic [509 BC to 44 BC], where the republican government allowed democratic rights only to a small section of the populace}, in modern times republics have been inexorably linked to democracy. The head of the republic is the President who has limited power while the real decision-making is in the hands of the democratically elected government. Presidents are elected for a specific term {usually 5 years} (Politicsdefined.com). There is no need to prove the superiority of democracy over the republic form of government because both are interchangeably linked, which is why a republic these days is better known as a ‘representative democracy’ (Wolff, 96). 3. Monarchy form of government This form of government is headed by a monarch {meaning ‘one ruler’ in Greek}, usually referred to as ‘King’ {Saudi Arabia} or ‘Emir’ {Kuwait}. Monarchs inherit their title as per the succession sequence {normally one Royal family, such as the Sabah family of Kuwait and the Saud family of Saudi Arabia} following its source back to a historical succession of hereditary rulers or bloodline. The economic situation in monarchies is characterised by accumulation of wealth in the hands of the Royal family members while most of the populace are employed in agriculture or industry. There have been some instances of democracy co-existing with monarchies. In such a scenario, the power and authority of the monarch is greatly restricted. Examples of such governments, called ‘constitutional monarchies’ are England {where the monarch is called ‘Prince,’ and Japan, where the monarch is referred to as ‘Emperor’} (Politicsdefined.com). Democracy is superior to a monarchy in several ways. Democratically elected representatives occupy office for a fixed term {usually 5 years} whereas the monarch’s rule is life long, allowing the latter free rein to indulge in exploitation of people, or entering into speculative long-term deals that could compromise the nation’s future. Secondly, while people can put forward their views through their elected representatives in a democracy, and even remove elected officials from their posts by not electing them for another term, people ruled by a monarch have no alternative but to accept the wishes and policies of their ruler. Monarchies do not have parties or elections or any form of interacting with the people to get their suggestions on important issues (Tilly et al. 207). Democracy also does not contain the hidden danger of sudden termination of a monarchy, possibly by a revolution or a referendum {for example, French revolutionaries toppled the monarchy in France in 1438 (Tilly et al. 2); in Greece, the process of ousting the monarchy took just a couple of months after which the country became a republic (Rose et al. 50)}. Ruling democratic parties can only be ousted in elections. Democracy therefore creates an atmosphere of stability, peace as well as economic stability {to local as well as international investors} in the country. 4. Theocratic form of government Religion forms the underlying platform of such a government. Based on the doctrine of Divine Right, theocratic rulers assert they rule with power given by God (Wolff, 17). Unlike democracy, they do consider the State as inexorably linked to religion. In fact, the authority of religious institutions exceeds civil authority (Kay). They have the same ideology of leaders of the majority religion in the country. Policies formed by the government are similar to, or powerfully swayed by, the principles of the dominant religion (Politicsdefined.com). The Vatican ruled by the Pope was an exemplary theocratic form of government during Churchill’s time. Another good example {although it occurred in 1979, much later than Churchill’s World War II era} is Iran, that has been ruled by the Muslim Clergy ever since that year. Democracy is superior in that it does not interfere with politics of other countries as theocracy does – for example, Pope Benedict XVI openly called for Turkey not to be admitted into the EU because it was a Muslim state (Kay). Democracy considers women to be equal contributors of society is not reflected in male-dominated theocracy, which is traditionally guilty of suppressing women’s rights. People living in a theocracy do not have the right to elect own representatives, while the overwhelming influence of religion prevents all round intellectual, societal and economic development of the individual. Most of all, democracy’s guaranteed right of religious freedom is not granted to people under theocracy which is more concerned with inculcating the principles of its own single religion among the people. Theocracies are known to take extreme moralistic stances, such as dubbing those who support abortion and gay marriage as being in ‘formal cooperation with evil’ (Kay). 5. Communist form of government Marxism evolved into socialism that in turn evolved into communism. The only difference between communism and its predecessors is its belief in seizing political power by revolution. While considering free elections a threat to the monopoly of power enjoyed by it (Rose et al. 10), a communist regime believes in exercising sole communal power and authority over society in order to generate common advantages to all (Politicsdefined.com). A communist economy involves people heavily in manufacturing activities, enhances their efficiency, reduces working hours (Wolff, 148), and encourages technological advancement, while its society is characterised by absence of class divides. The community owns all public property and all people have equivalent social and economic positions (Politicsdefined.com). Communist regimes maintain a stranglehold on power by making the army, navy and security forces subordinate to it (Tilly et al. 238). During Churchill’s time, two exemplary communist ruled nations were China and the Soviet Union {it disintegrated in 1991 - many years after Churchill’s time in office}. Democracy does not tolerate human rights violations that are rampantly perpetrated by communist regimes {such as those carried out by the Soviet Union’s dreaded KGB}. Democracy also does not indulge in oppressive practices like repression of independent labour unions and free press. People ruled by communist regimes lack the freedom and ambition provided by a democracy that is crucial to break out of their ‘robotic’ way of life, discover and revel in their sovereign identity, indulge in healthy competition and strive to attain better standards of living for themselves and their families. The feeling of repression becomes so high for people who have lived all their lives in communism that even a ‘second-best democracy’ seems very attractive to them (Rose et al. 4). Communists do not encourage religion {a good example is the ruthless prosecution of Jews by the Soviet Communists}, thus not providing the fundamental right of worship that is guaranteed by democracy. Most of all, while democracy fosters comfortable living standards for its citizens, the very foundation of communism {creation of a society wherein abundance of food and other needs of people is assured by technology} has turned out to be unrealistic. Such a situation never existed and it is highly probable that it will not occur in future. It is not surprising therefore that the last quarter of the 20th century witnessed the collapse of communism (Diamond et al. 1). 6. Dictatorship form of government A single individual {dictator} is the supreme leader in a dictatorship. A dictator may be elected {and later seize power by banning elections and opposition parties}, could inherit the post from a dead relative, or wrest power by engineering a coup with the active help of the country’s military. Some dictators assume the title of ‘President’ while continuing to exercise excessive, non-Constitutional powers with the help of a selected band of supporters (Politicsdefined.com). Dictatorships usually do not last long before the oppressed people overthrow the dictator. Adolf Hitler of Germany, perpetrator-in-chief of World War II, is an excellent example of a ruthless dictator. As compared to living in a democracy, there is no guarantee of political rights and civil liberties to people living in a dictatorship (Diamond et al. 148). Such people have no freedom of speech; even if a dictator wants to comply with the wishes of the people, there is no mechanism in place to learn about their wishes (Wolff, 71) – unlike a democracy where the people put forwards their ideas on various issues through their elected representatives. People in a dictatorship also have no freedom of press or freedom of association and they have to contend with rampant human rights violations {for example, the innumerable atrocities committed by Hitler’s Gestapo and Nazi thugs}. Another crucial shortcoming is the right to worship {anti-Semitism grew into such mammoth proportions that it turned in government policy under Hitler (Tilly et al. 130), resulting in the infamous persecutions of millions of Jews by Hitler during World War II that resulted in innumerable deaths besides subjecting Jews to the worst possible treatment in concentration camps - chilling facts that will always be remembered by mankind}. Most of all, the destiny of the people themselves as well as that of their country are subject to the whims and fancies of one man {for example, Hitler dragged Germany into a World War that resulted in thousands of Germans being killed, while there was huge economic losses while livelihood and living standards were compromised; the country’s woes continued after it lost the war, the post-war years witnessing a huge erosion of the economic resources at the hands of the victorious Allies}. 7. Fascist form of government In a fascist form of government, the State is the supreme governing authority exalted above individuals or groups who are relegated to mere relative roles. Benito Mussolini shattered Italy’s aspirations of democracy by installing a fascist regime there (Rose et al. 16), famously declaring the fascist philosophy as: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State” (Politicsdefined.com). Fascism is identical to communism in all aspects except ownership of industries. While the latter involves State ownership of the nation’s industries, fascism permits the private sector to own industries, but subject to government control. Fascism is not only blatantly immoral (Diamond et al. 15), it is also the complete antithesis of individualism, people living under fascist rule do not enjoy facilities provided under a democracy such as the right to vote and elect their own representatives and freedom of press. They cannot be free and independent, but instead subject to the authority of the ruling party; as liberty undoubtedly comprises the most important requirement of an individual, the fascist form of government is looked up as badly lacking in this respect. Most of all, they cannot exercise their right to equality because fascism is noted for its racist policies. Conclusion Today, it is widely believed that only a democratic form of government is totally justifiable (Wolff, 62). Whereas only 30 nations were ruled democratically in 1975, the number nearly quadrupled to 119 in 2005 (Grier). There have been recent efforts on the part of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Vladimir Putin of Russia to try and discredit democracy (Grier); Putin in particular is increasingly willing to use the power of the State and is refusing to acknowledge the democratic rights of society in pursuit of his objectives (Diamond et al. 189). But the efforts of both leaders have been largely construed as being individually self-centred and therefore their views are not accepted seriously in any quarter of the world. Given the huge number of advantages possessed by democracy over all the other form of governments prevailing during his time in office, Winston Churchill was absolutely correct in extolling democracy as the best {or ‘worst, except for other’} form of government. Democracy has retained its distinct superiority in the years following Churchill’s World War II era, and judging from the present world scenario, it is the only form of government that can foster peace, stability and constitutional rights for all citizens – and most of the world has realized and accepted this. References: Diamond, Larry and Plattner, Marc.F. “Democracy after Communism.” USA: The John Hopkins University Press. 2002. “Forms of Government.” Politicsdefined.com. 2005. 1 Dec. 2007. Grier, Peter. “Global Spread of Democracy.” The Christian Monitor. 2007. 1 Dec. 2007. Kay, Joseph. “Pope Benedict XVI’s Political Resume: Theocracy and Social Reaction.” World Socialist Web Site. 2005. Rose Richard, Mishler William and Haerpfer Christian. “Democracy and Its Alternatives: Understanding Post-Communist Societies.” USA: The John Hopkins University Press. 1998. Tilly Charles, McAdam Douglas and Farrow Sidney. “Contention and Democracy in Europe.” U.K: Cambridge University Press. 2004. Wolff, Jonathan. “An Introduction to Political Philosophy.” USA: Oxford Press. 2006. Heywood, Andrew. “Political Theory: An Introduction (third editon).” Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. 1) Page 113: Refers to republican rule in the U.S. 2) Page 132: Refers to British monarchy – an institution that is no longer a significant authority. 3) Page 78: Refers to dictatorship – where the government succeeds in harnessing the sovereign power of the State for its own partisan goals. 4) Page 34: Refers to fascism - calling it the antithesis of individualism. 5) Page 144: Refers to communism – where the monopoly of power does not correspond with the values and aspirations of the masses. 6) Page 150: Also refers to communism – calling communist regimes one-party States dominated by a ruling communist party whose influence extends over virtually all groups. 7) Page 91: Refers to theocracy – saying the Vatican built on the tradition of St. Augustine that has been interpreted as justification for theocracy. 8) Pages 102 and 103: Also refer to theocracy – saying Islamic fundamentalists formed an Islamic State, a theocracy ruled by spiritual, rather than temporal authority. Hoffman, John and Graham, Paul. “Introduction to Political Theory: Concepts and Ideologies.” Longman, 2006. 1) Page 104: Refers to democracy – saying it is very hard to find anyone who disagrees with democracy these days; even extreme right and extreme left politicians insist that their politics are democratic. 2) Page 291: Refers to fascism – saying Mussolini suppressed all other parliamentary parties and created a regime made up purely of fascists. 3) Page 241: Refers to communism – saying concepts like it are inherently oppressive because they are necessarily imposed upon the sovereign individual. 4) Page 15: Refers to dictatorship – saying Hitler became the undisputed dictator of Germany, ruling over a State astonishing in its ruthless totalitarianism and violent anti-Semitism. 5) Page 111: Refers to theocracy – saying it is concerned only with the moral and spiritual interests of its members Read More