Definition of the Democracy Concept - Literature review Example

TIME TO TALK: DEMOCRACY Student’s Name Course Professor’s Name University City (State) Date Time to Talk: Democracy The concept of democracy is one that is largely misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misused by many. The resulting cloud of disarray comes in the backdrop of daily mentioning of the word and the concept in the media. Nonetheless, different people define democracy differently based on how the concept is used in their localities and what it means to them. To illustrate this, I asked three different people the question: "How do you define democracy?" Below are their responses. i. Person 1: “Democracy refers to a political structure in which the common people make laws and decisions for themselves.” [I would explain representative and pure forms of democracy, but I do not think that is the intention of your question]. ii. Person 2: “Democracy is a concept that entails power wrangles and struggles through regular elections while the citizens are used as a means of initiating these struggles through legitimate elections.” [The people do not really have a say in making the important decisions or laws like missile defence and other critical policies]. iii. Person 3: “Democracy is a form of government that is run by a president or ruler, but created by the common majority in which the laws and any governance decisions are formulated for the common good of all the citizens who are involved with the elected government.” I define democracy as a government formed by the people in which the common majority or the citizens have supreme power, and they have the ability to exercise their power through a just, free, and fair electoral system. My definition coincides with that of Abraham Lincoln “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people” (Stout 2015, p. 830). My definition takes into consideration the two possible categories of democracy: direct and representative. In the former, the people themselves, without the intermediation of a representative, participate in the making of critical and less critical decisions within the society. Given the intricacies associated with the dynamics of governance, Fraser (2004) notes that direct democracy is only feasible and plausible in systems with few people, for instance, a tribal council or organisation. In such systems, the members can hold a boardroom-like meeting and resolve major issues through majority vote or consensus. It is impossible in the modern-day large government settings given the huge population and the complexities associated with democratically making crucial decisions when everyone is involved. The most common form of democracy in the contemporary world is the representative democracy. In this case, the citizens elect the officials they trust and have them formulate laws and make important decisions on behalf of the citizens who elected them. The officials are expected to advance the common good in every decision they make and every step they take with respect to governance. Drawing from the power vested in them by the people, the elected officials deliberate on complex issues that call for judicious decision-making, complex structures, and undivided attention with limited friction, the type of coordination that is rare to find when everyone is involved in the process of governance of resource management. The election of these officials is not a uniform process and varies from one locality to the other. Even in the individual nations, the election of officials varies through the systems of governance, for instance, provincial, national, or state levels. Regardless of the form of democracy, it is important to note that it is the people that run the government alongside the laws of the land. Given the different ways that people understand democracy, there are some similarities and differences between my definition of democracy and those of the three respondents. Besides, there is no one-size-fits-all criterion on how to define democracy (Schaffer 2014; Munck 2016). However, my definition resonates with the definitions of the first and third respondents. It is agreeable that democratic governments are for the people. In particular, the definitions treat ‘the people’ as an entity or a unit. According to Munck (2016), one of the primary characteristics of democracy is that it treats people equally in the face of the law. Therefore, unitary treatment of citizens (the people) implies that they are equal in the face of the law, and such social elements as discrimination are foreign to democracy. Correspondingly, every vote is equal in terms of weighting (Boehringer 2014). On the same note, both my definition and that of the three respondents acknowledge an existence of the rule of law in a democracy. The second respondent, however, only feebly refers to the rule of law through indication of a ‘legitimate election,’ which, according to Schumpeter (2013), is somewhat impossible without a well-defined and elaborate legal framework. Therefore, all the four definitions of democracy in this discussion recognises the vitality of the rule of law in a democracy. It is one the rule of law the entire concept of democracy balances. The citizens, according to the three definitions, set these laws and expect their representatives to abide and operate by them. An examination of my definition versus the other three reveals particular overt differences. One major difference is that, while my definition encompassed the elements of both representative and direct forms of democracy, all the other three responses mostly alluded to one form democracy, thus, defined the concept partially. Person 1 defined direct democracy while the third person defined representative democracy. The second participant also alluded to the representative form of democracy. In this manner, the respondents left out certain elements that are critical in the definition of democracy and which would be required in the analysis of such concepts related to democracy as freedom (Andersen, Moller and Skaaming 2014). Unlike my definition, the second respondents take a negative view of democracy, which is commonly associated with the representative form of democracy. Shi and Chu (2015) note that the concept of democracy is contemporarily being misused by the elected leaders to advance their individual interests in place of advocating for the common good which falls at the core of actual democracy. The response provides an alternative view and definition of democracy that is not captured in my definition or those of the other two respondents. According to Kolstad and Wiig (2016), this is an elitist view of democracy which primarily views a democratic government as one that is run by a few individuals whose intentions are much far from advancing the common good, but their own good. Notwithstanding the similarities, my view of democracy was different, in at least one way, from those of the other respondents. There are several ways to explain this difference, and the major one is one’s political background. Different regions, nations, states, provinces and levels of governance handle democracy differently. While other nations, for instance, handle democracy judiciously and rank top in practice, others use it as a means of oppressing their citizens (Kolstad and Wiig 2016; Boehringer 2014) and suppressing justice (Weale 2013). There is never a guarantee that a democratic system will work perfectly as a result of the differing opinions among the people, which may lead to the election of illegitimate leaders. Different people elect leaders differently given their personal evaluation of their preferred leader (Vigoda-Gadot and Mizrahi 2014). This divergence of opinion can result in both good and bad leaders with one side likely to influence the other, thus, reorienting the entire direction of a country’s leadership. On that note, people who come from backgrounds where democracy is misused by the leaders have a high chance of taking a negative view of democracy. I think that such a scenario was the source of the definition of the second respondent. It could also be argued that the remaining two participants defined different forms of democracy (direct and representative) since that is what is common in their political backgrounds. Similarly, the participants may have defined democracy in the manner they did, given that there is no consensus concerning the definition of democracy (Geissel, Kneuer and Lauth 2016). Since the respondents were students, they may have drawn these definitions from their learning materials which are guaranteed to differ in terms of definition. Munck (2016) notes that definitions of democracy range from one material to the other and the context in which the material is written alongside the message it intends to convey. Readers of different materials are highly likely to define democracy differently. Conclusively, from this discursive process, I discovered that democracy is a concept that is common yet misunderstood across the board. Besides, the responses of the participants reveal that it is difficult to formulate a single definition of democracy give that the concept is context-specific. That is, localities view and practice democracy differently depending on their political, social, and economic situations. My democratic views are exclusively influenced by how I have witnessed the concept work in my locality, same as those of my respondents. The definition of Person 2 also revealed a critical aspect of democracy- conflicts. In some quarters, democracy has been declared impractical solely based on the complexities built into its fabric (Hill Jr. 2016), like the element of power struggle and elitism. In general, it remains an attractive instrument of governance since it gives more power to the people. References List Andersen, D., Møller, J. and Skaaning, S.E., 2014. The state-democracy nexus: conceptual distinctions, theoretical perspectives, and comparative approaches. Democratization, 21(7), pp.1203-1220. Boehringer, G., 2014. Bringing the State and Corporation to Justice: democratic justice and the potential of Local People’s Tribunals. In International Association of Democratic, 18th Congress s, Brussels, Belgium. Fraser, N., 2004. Institutionalizing democratic justice: Redistribution, recognition and participation. Pragmatism, critique, judgment: Essays for Richard J. Bernstein, pp.125-148. Geissel, B., Kneuer, M. and Lauth, H.J., 2016. Measuring the quality of democracy: Introduction. International Political Science Review, 37(5), pp.571-579. Hill Jr, D.W., 2016. Democracy and the Concept of Personal Integrity Rights. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), pp.822-835. Kolstad, I. and Wiig, A., 2016. Does democracy reduce corruption? Democratization, 23(7), pp.1198-1215. Munck, G.L., 2016. What is democracy? A reconceptualization of the quality of democracy. Democratization, 23(1), pp.1-26. Schaffer, F.C., 2014. Thin descriptions: The limits of survey research on the meaning of democracy. Polity, 46(3), pp.303-330. Schumpeter, J.A., 2013. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge, Abingdon. Shi, T. and Chu, Y.H., 2015. Parties, Elections, Voters and Democracy. Voting in Old and New Democracies, p.193. Stout, M., 2015. Democratic Justice and the Social Contract. Public Administration, 93(3), pp.830-832. Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Mizrahi, S., 2014. Prologue: The conflict between good governance and open democracy: A crisis of trust. In Managing Democracies in Turbulent Times (pp. 1-9). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Weale, A., 2013. Democratic justice and the social contract. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Read More