Democracy and Elections - Essay Example

Democracy Democracy Introduction The word democracy comes from the Greek word, demokratia, which simply meansthe rule of the people. The word was coined in the 5th century BC from two Greek words, demos, which means people and kratos, which means rule or power (Isakhan, and Stockwell, 2011). The term was coined to describe the emerging form of political system that was becoming popular in Greek City States such as Athens at the time. Democracy can therefore be defined as a political system or form of government where political power comes from the people who are being governed (Isakhan, and Stockwell, 2011). There are two main types of democracy namely direct and representative democracy. Direct democracy involves every eligible citizen actively and directly participating in the decision making process in the making of the government. In direct democracy, there are no intermediaries between the people and the leaders in government. An example of direct democracy is that practiced in Glarus and in the Swiss Cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden (Springer, 2011). Representative democracy on the other hand involves decisions on governance being made by a few individuals acting as representatives of the citizens. The various forms of representative democracy include presidential, parliamentary, constitutional and hybrid systems of government. The most important element of democracy is voting and elections. This is the only means through which the people exercise their sovereign power in decision making in both representative and direct democracies (Springer, 2011). This essay seeks to examine the various dimensions of democracy and elections to determine if democracy really works. This paper will focus on the discussion that democracy does not work because people do not know what they are voting for and therefore vote against their best interests. The essay will examine both arguments in favor and in opposition to the motion of discussion. Arguments to support the statement Democracy as a system of governance has a lot of flaws and challenges that make it a difficult system to manage. It is therefore true that democracy does not work because the people do not know what they are voting for and thereof end up voting against their interests and getting the wrong leaders in the office. One argument to support this claim is the concept of populism. A democratic contest between political leaders in an election usually boils down to a popularity contest among them (Held, D. 2006). A popular candidate in this case is one who is willing to tell the masses what they are willing to hear at any particular time. As a consequence, most of the elected leaders are those that have popular ideas among the people with policies that aim at solving the current problems of the people as opposed to long term solutions to the problems of the people. Populist ideas are often propagated by outspoken and charismatic leader who are capable of persuading the masses that they have the best ideas when in real sense they are actually using sweet words in order to get in office and propagate their own agenda (Held, D. 2006). Popular leader often seek to play with the emotions of the people rather than their ability to reason and make appropriate decisions. People often get carried away through populism and vote for the leaders who they would otherwise not have voted for if they had a second chance. Another misgiving of democratic elections is the concept of tribal mentality where people focus on electing one of their own (Held, D. 2006). The person with a large backing of people often wins the elections. Most people would therefore vote for an individual because they come from the same tribe, race, religion, sex, or even from the same region. These people will therefore be blind to the real issues that the election is about and will end up voting people they would not wish to vote for given other reasonable criteria such as one’s ability to govern. Most election contests in democracies are therefore based on the concept of its’ my people against your people’ where each candidate comes with a backing of their own people and one with the most people wins the context. This tribal mentality is very harmful in democracies as it prevents people from reasoning and voting based on real issues that affect them (Isakhan, and Stockwell, 2011). Another flaw of democratic elections is the mob rule, which allows the majority to rule over the minority. In as much as democracy purports to represent and respect the views of everybody equally in the community, the concept of the majority rule disregards the ideas and opinions of the minority in decision making processes. The minority group in an election contest might have the best ideas and they may have voted for the best candidates in an election but due to the mob rule, they may not enjoy the fruits of their conscious decisions. The majority rule does not necessarily mean that their ideas are the best and they may end up voting for the wrong person. Democracy also relies on aprioristic equality, which means that all votes and opinions are equal in the community (Tannsjo, T. 2008). This is a flawed school of thought because it puts the same weight on the ideas and opinions of the most educated people and those of ignorant citizens. A majority of the people in most democracies consist of the people who are less educated while the educated ones are a minority. Based on this assertion, the majority who are either ignorant of their democratic role or those with less education often have their way at the expense of the few most leaned individuals who can make informed decisions. A majority of the people in a democracy do not therefore really know what they are voting for in an election. All these arguments point to the fact that a democratic system of governance does not work and cannot achieve its main objective of representing the view of the people in the society. In real sense the opinions, ideas and views propagated in a democratic society are those of the mob, populists, and tribal groups that do not represent those of the entire community (Glaeser, Ponzetto, & Shleifer, 2007). Most people who vote in democratic elections do not really know why and what they are voting for and therefore end up voting for the wrong reasons and for the wrong people. It is therefore true to say that democracy does not work because people do not know what they are voting for and therefore vote against their best interests. Arguments against the statement Democracy is the best form of government that any society can have since it gives the people the sovereign authority to exercise it at their own discretion either directly or through representation. Everybody in the society is therefore important and has equal power in decision making as opposed to other forms of governance that concentrate power among a few people and individuals. It is therefore not correct to argue that democracy does not work because people do not know what they are voting for and therefore vote against their best interests. In any democratic election, there is civil education conducted by the state to educate the people on the importance of elections, their right to vote and how to elect best leaders (Glaeser, Ponzetto, & Shleifer, 2007). The people therefore fully understand why and how to vote by the time they head to the ballot box to elect their leaders. After the civic education the people know that they ought to elect leaders that will advance their interests and therefore vote on that basis. The eligible voters therefore fully understand the consequences of their actions and they are fully aware of their interests and the type of leaders who can best represent them. Democracy enhances competition among individuals and political parties (Davenport, 2007). Elected leaders are judged on the basis of their performance in relation to representing the interests of their electors. The leaders are elected for a specified time upon which they will be assessed and reelected or removed from office by the people. The elected individuals in a democracy are under constant watch from the people and various other opposing groups to make sure that they deliver and act in the best interest of the electors. With this in mind, democracy allows for the elected leaders to work within the framework of the interests of their electors through the various checks and balances that exist in government mechanisms. Democracy serves to ensure that the interests of the people are fully represented by their elected leaders. The voters therefore have the security that their best interests will be fully represented. Democracy also gives the people a sense of participation in governance, whether they are in the majority or in the minority. Democracy ensures inclusiveness where the elected leaders are expected to serve everybody equally and represent the interests of everybody. Voting in most democracies is by secret ballot and the elected leaders do not know exactly who voted for them or who voted against them. This makes it necessary for them to serve each person equally and make sure they deliver on every promise they pledged in their campaigns in order for everybody to benefit. It therefore does not matter whether one was in the majority or minority since they will be served equally and their interests will be represented equally. Based on these arguments, it is very clear that democracy is self sustainable through the various internal government mechanisms such as the various institutions including the civil society and nongovernmental organizations that provide the necessary checks and balances to ensure the system works efficiently. With appropriate civil education to support these checks and balances, the citizens know why, who and how to elect leaders in a democracy to make sure the system works efficiently. One cannot therefore argue that democracy does not work because people do not know what they are voting for and therefore vote against their best interests. Conclusion Both arguments are very solid in their reasoning and have very valid thoughts that need to be examined and analyzed critically. In trying to understand whether democracy works as intended and whether the people know why and what they are voting for, one has to compare democracy to the other available forms of governance and political systems in order to determine which among them is better. If a country does not have democracy, it either has a monarchy, oligarchy, or a tyranny. In conclusion therefore, in as much as we recognize that democracy has its own faults, we also ought to recognize that it brings a lot of hope for the future societies in terms of governance and respecting ideas of everyone in the community and adhering to civil liberties of individuals (Davenport, 2007). With appropriate structures and institutions in place, democracy is the best form or governance and can work effectively for the people. Bibliography Davenport, C. 2007. State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Glaeser, E., Ponzetto, G. & Shleifer, A. 2007. Why does democracy need education? Journal of Economic Growth, 12(2), 77–99. Held, D. 2006. Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press, St. Redwood City, CA. Isakhan, B. and Stockwell, S. 2011. The Secret History of Democracy. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke. Springer, S. 2011. "Public Space as Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism, Radical Democracy, Neoliberalism and Violence". Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography 43 (2): 525–562. Tannsjo, T. 2008. Global Democracy: The Case for a World Government. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Read More