From its earliest origins
the meaning of the word “democracy”
has been disputed. Aristotle believed
that whenever men ruled by virtue of their wealth, regardless as to whether they were a majority or a
minority then were an oligarchy, but if the poor ruled then you had a
democracy. He directly links democracy
to the many poor.
Democracy is hard to define. It is a word, which can be used to describe
a concept of society or a practical process. If it is regarded as a concept
there will be no precise and agreed meaning and this would explain the
different interpretations and connotations of the word throughout its long
history. Many people have differing
views as to how a society should operate. Words often evolve over time and in
some cases have multiple meanings.
Because democracy is a word
which has come to denote good many
people have taken a view of democracy based on their own personal agendas and
attached it to them. Defining democracy
as a practical process enables one to be more specific.
The word democracy is derived from the Greek demos meaning “people” and kratos
meaning “rule,” hence the modern
interpretation “rule by the people.” The Oxford Classical Dictionary tells us
that the word first emerged around the turn of the 5th to 4th
centuries BC after revolts in Athens had removed a dynasty of tyrants from
power.
In his book “No mean City” the travel writer Simeon
Strunsky wrote in 1944 “People who want
to understand democracy should spend less time in the library with Aristotle
and more time on the buses and in the subway”. In order to write about democracy we have to
try and understand exactly what it means so that will involve trying to
reconcile the academic view of democracy learnt in the library with the
practical reality as it affects ordinary people.
The Oxford Dictionary gives two definitions:
(1) Government
by all the people, direct or representative.
(2) form
of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority
views.
The first definition is a factual
process. In a modern context it may
need to be expanded but nevertheless it is explicit. The second definition is conceptual.
For example: Do all the people have a vote in determining how they are governed is a question of fact. If they do not who does not have a vote? This is also a question of fact. Is the vote direct or is it used to choose a representative? This is also factual and these items can be measured. They are all part of a process. On the other hand how do you measure a “form of society”? The answer can only be opinion. It cannot be specifically measured. There can be many forms of society, which ignore hereditary class distinctions and tolerate minority views.
For example: Do all the people have a vote in determining how they are governed is a question of fact. If they do not who does not have a vote? This is also a question of fact. Is the vote direct or is it used to choose a representative? This is also factual and these items can be measured. They are all part of a process. On the other hand how do you measure a “form of society”? The answer can only be opinion. It cannot be specifically measured. There can be many forms of society, which ignore hereditary class distinctions and tolerate minority views.
Is it because of the blurring of the
definitions between democracy as a process and democracy as a concept that
there are so many different opinions as to what it means?
John Dunn in Setting the People Free states:
“What we mean by democracy is not that we
govern ourselves. When we speak or
think of ourselves as living in a democracy what we have in mind is something
quite different. It is that our own
state, and the government which does so much to organise our lives, draws its
legitimacy from us, and that we have a reasonable chance of being able to compel
each of them to continue to do so. They
draw it today from holding regular elections, in which every adult citizen can
vote freely and without fear, in which their votes have at least a reasonably
equal weight, and in which any uncriminalized political opinion can compete
freely for them. Modern representative
democracy has changed the idea of democracy almost beyond recognition. But in doing so, it has shifted it from one
of history’s hopeless losers to one of its more insistent winners".
The Oxford Dictionary’s first definition has echoes of the speech by
Theodore Parker at the N. E. Anti-Slavery Convention on 29th May
1850 in the U.S.A. when he said “A
democracy, that is, a government of all the people, for all the people; of
course, a government after the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging
law of God; for shortness’ sake, I will call it the idea of freedom.” You can see in this quotation how the factual
and the conceptual become entangled. It
widens the definition to encompass justice, freedom and religion all in one
sentence.
Lenin did not accept The Oxford Dictionary’s second definition. In his view, set out in “State and Revolution” published in 1919 he says, “No, Democracy is not identical with majority rule. No, Democracy is a State which recognises the subjection of the minority to the majority, that is, an organisation for the systematic use of violence by one class against the other, by one part of the population against another.” Lenin is referring to his perception of the reality of democracy but in doing so he distorts the word in order to promote his political ideology. An approach which is not unique to Lenin. Like many politicians Lenin was also prone to exaggeration. He once asserted “Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy; Soviet government is a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic”.
Lenin did not accept The Oxford Dictionary’s second definition. In his view, set out in “State and Revolution” published in 1919 he says, “No, Democracy is not identical with majority rule. No, Democracy is a State which recognises the subjection of the minority to the majority, that is, an organisation for the systematic use of violence by one class against the other, by one part of the population against another.” Lenin is referring to his perception of the reality of democracy but in doing so he distorts the word in order to promote his political ideology. An approach which is not unique to Lenin. Like many politicians Lenin was also prone to exaggeration. He once asserted “Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy; Soviet government is a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic”.
Lenin
was not the only person to have a distorted view of democracy. The late Ayatollah Khomeini opposed
democracy calling it “a form of
prostitution”. He argued that
whoever gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to God. Khomeini raises the question as to whether
it is possible for democracy to exist in a fundamentalist Islamic State. The simple answer is “No, it is not possible”, but I will explore this further during
the course of the book.
In
1962 the late S.E.Finer wrote a book called “The Man on Horseback”, published by Pall Mall Press. He listed six of the official titles with
which leading military dictators “have decorated their regimes”:
Nasser Presidential Democracy
Ayub
Khan Basic Democracy
Sukarno Guided Democracy
Franco Organic Democracy
Stroessner Selective Democracy
Trujillo Neo-Democracy.
And Sammy Finer was only writing about
military regimes. The Soviet Union,
China, and their allies or puppet states all took very seriously their proud
description of being “Peoples’ Democracies”.
They believed that the working class should be emancipated, should rule
over other classes in a time of revolutionary transition until a classless
society was achieved, the rule of the people - democracy.
It
is easy to mock military regimes but for as long as democracy has a connotation
of mother and apple pie politicians will use the word for their own ends.
Throughout history the establishment, consisting of the educated elite, have regarded democracy as a threat, probably through their fear of the “rule of the mob” and because they saw it jeopardising their comfortable existence. Only in recent times has this fear subsided as democracy has slowly been introduced without their comfortable existence disappearing. The Encyclopaedia Britannica gives an extended definition of the word. It says there are three basic senses in contemporary usage:
Throughout history the establishment, consisting of the educated elite, have regarded democracy as a threat, probably through their fear of the “rule of the mob” and because they saw it jeopardising their comfortable existence. Only in recent times has this fear subsided as democracy has slowly been introduced without their comfortable existence disappearing. The Encyclopaedia Britannica gives an extended definition of the word. It says there are three basic senses in contemporary usage:
(1) a form of government in which the
right to make political decisions is exercised directly by the whole body of
citizens, acting under procedures of majority rule, usually known as direct
democracy;
(2) a form of government in which the
citizens exercise the same right not in person but through representatives
chosen by and responsible to them, known as “representative democracy;” and
(3) a form of government, usually a
representative democracy, in which the powers of the majority are exercised
within a framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee all
citizens the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights, such as
freedom of speech and religion, known as liberal, or constitutional, democracy.
Once again we can see
the clash between the factual definitions (1) and (2) and the conceptual
definition in (3)
We can
see from definition (3) that the concept of democracy is widened considerably
and it is this that creates the greatest argument. For to define it you have to say what
restraints are imposed and what rights are given and if rights are given are
responsibilities accepted at the same time.
This vagueness is exemplified by the definition given by Amazon.com – “The principles of social equality and
respect for the individual within a community.” What on earth does that mean?
I started this
introduction by quoting the Greek meaning of democracy as “rule by the people”.
Abraham Lincoln extended this definition to encompass “freedom” in one of his most famous
speeches at Gettysburg on November 19 1863 when he spoke of “this nation, under God, shall have a new
birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the
people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Democracy is a system of government. It is not a perfect form of government and often there are difficulties with it. On the 11th November 1944 in Parliament Sir Winston Churchill declared “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Democracy is a system of government. It is not a perfect form of government and often there are difficulties with it. On the 11th November 1944 in Parliament Sir Winston Churchill declared “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
In
a radio broadcast to schools in 1934 Stanley Baldwin said “Democracy is a most difficult form of government – difficult because
it requires for its perfect functioning the participation of all the people in
the country. It cannot function –
function well – unless everyone, men and women alike, feel their responsibility
to their State, do their own duty, and try and choose the men who will do
theirs. It is not a matter of party; it
is common to all of us, because democracy wants constant guarding.”
In his
book “The Age of Consent” George
Monbiot describes democracy as:
"…a form of government in
which sovereign power belongs, in theory, to the people, in which those people
have equal rights, and in which the will of the majority is expressed and
exercised through elections between competing candidates and parties".
All these commentators,
with their differing viewpoints are agreed that democracy is a system of
government of the people so my definition will start from that point:
Democracy is a system of government of the people……
But Abraham Lincoln went
further when he added “by the people”.
Here he is letting the people exercise power. After all government is a decision making
process for directing society and when he talks about “the people” he does so without any qualification. In
other words all people regardless of sex, race or creed are able to
participate. For all the people to
participate then they must do so either directly or through their representative
and as people have differing views we have to determine the view of the
majority. This is not as simple as it
may appear at first sight.
How do we define
people? Clearly, foreigners whose
allegiance is to another government are excluded from government of the people;
otherwise there could be a conflict of interest. It
cannot be right that the people that legislate for the people are not subject
to those laws. They would not meet the
definition of “by the people, for the
people”. The people determine who
shall govern themselves. In so doing
they define the limits of who is governed.
Effectively they define the extent of the nation. The people cannot determine how people are
governed who have no say in the way in which they are governed. That would not be “by the people”. Can the
people be restricted? For example
should prisoners have a vote? The
simple answer is No, there should be no restriction.
Democratic forms of
politics are grounded in the principle of popular sovereignty or consent by the
people and thus the question of who are “the people” is profoundly
important. Where “the people” become so
divided by group antagonisms that there is no sense of political identity then
democratization is impossible. As
Rustow pointed out, a country cannot even start on the road to liberal
democracy until there is some sense of at least minimal national identity.
We might think that the
definition of the United Kingdom as a Nation is clear, but is it? The European Union imposes laws on the
United Kingdom. There is therefore a
case for arguing that the European Union is a Nation and as such is required to
meet our definition of democracy, so when we talk of “the people” we should state that we mean “the people of the Nation.”
If
democracy is “rule by the people” and freedom is the
ability of people to rule themselves then in a free society we use democracy as
a process by which you determine the will of the majority.
John Stuart Mill, for all his
misgivings about democracy believed that all the people should participate:
“ …it is evident that the only government which can
fully satisfy all the exigencies of the social state is one in which the whole
people participate; that any participation, even in the smallest public
function, is useful; that the participation should everywhere be as great as
the general degree of improvement of the community will allow; and that nothing
less can be ultimately desirable than the admission of all to a share in the
sovereign power of the state”.
Edmund
Burke wrote in the eighteenth century “A
law against the majority of the people is in substance a law against the people
itself; its extent determines its validity; it even changes its character as it
enlarges its operation. A law directed against the mass of the
nation has not the nature of a reasonable institution, so neither has it the
authority: for in all forms of government the people is the true legislator;
and whether the immediate and instrumental cause of the law be a single person
or many, the remote and efficient cause is the consent of the people, either
actual or implied; and such consent is absolutely essential to its validity”.
In his book Democracy Anthony Arblaster said of
Rousseau:
It was Rousseau’s conviction that no one could
be truly free who did not govern him - or herself, and that therefore only some
kind of direct democracy provided the framework within which government and
freedom could be reconciled.
Rousseau contended that
English people were only free during the election of Members of
Parliament. As soon as an MP was
elected the people became enslaved again, even if the MP was deemed to be your
representative.
On the
other hand a representative democracy means that the people can directly elect
those that govern them or alternatively through the ballot box dismiss
them. In a perfect democracy those
elected would reflect the views of all the people, but that is not possible
because the views can be so varied and can change from day to day, but that
does not stop us from aiming for the ideal.
There are practical steps that can be taken; e.g. each representative
from a constituency has an electorate consisting of the same number of people
or as similar number as is practical.
There may be arguments as to whether the will of the majority is best
obtained by differing systems of election such as “proportional representation”
or “first past the post” but the essential element is that whichever system is
used the result is accepted by the majority of the people.
Societies
are complex and many decisions need to be taken. This means that we cannot just vote on
issues, but we need to select individuals (representatives) to decide for us
and give them the ability to translate their decisions into action
(government). So democracy can be
exercised either directly or through a representative.
To
connect all these points together there has to be a mechanism and the mechanism
we have is the vote. Of course people’s
views change so there needs to be a reasonable frequency of voting.
We can
now extend our definition as follows:
Democracy is a system of
government of the people in which the people of the Nation exercise power
directly, or indirectly through their representatives, by a process in which
the will of the majority is determined.
In determining the will of the majority, all people, regardless of sex,
race or creed, are able to participate….
Democracy
cannot be said to be fully realised in a country until all adults enjoy the
right to vote. This involves giving
equal voting power to persons having unequal ability to think intelligently on
matters of government, unequal willingness to equip themselves for exercising
their political rights, and unequal responsibilities, both functional and
financial, as citizens. But it ensures
universal application of a principle, which is fundamental to the rights of the
individual – the opportunity to have a voice in determining how he shall be
governed – and eliminates the possibility of political discrimination on
account of income, language, colour, creed or sex.
Participation in free elections is a
vital condition of democracy. Elections
are the only peaceful means by which governments can be made ultimately
answerable to all of the community and by voting people are showing that they
wish to have at least some say in public policy.
Voting at general elections,
however, is such a limited form of political participation that it only takes
us a fairly small way along the road to democracy. General Elections normally take place every
four or five years, while decision making is a continuous process.
We can see that each person
should have equal voting power i.e. a vote of equal value and when exercising
that vote they must be able to do so without any fear of intimidation or
violence. It must therefore be a secret
ballot.
Freedom of speech is one of the key elements of
democracy. As Anthony Arblaster states
in “Democracy”:
“If we look to the people to play a more
positive role, freely voicing their demands and hopes, their fears and
grievances, as well as introducing ideas and initiating policies, plainly this
can only happen in an atmosphere of the greatest possible freedom and openness,
free from any taint of intimidatory anxiety or apprehension as to the possible
consequences of speaking out”.
Freedom does not only consist of
freedom of speech but freedom of action is involved also. In “The
Age of Consent” George Monbiot says:
“Freedom
is the ability to act upon our beliefs.
It expands, therefore, with the scope of the action we are prepared to
contemplate. If we know that we will
never act, we have no freedom: we will, for the rest of our lives do as we are
told. Almost everyone has some sense
that other people should be treated, as she would wish to be. Almost everyone, in other words, has a
notion of justice, and for most people this notion, however formulated, sits
somewhere close to the heart of their system of beliefs. If we do not act upon this sense of justice,
we do not act on one of our primary beliefs, and our freedom is restricted
accordingly. To be truly free, in other
words we must be prepared to contemplate revolution”.
For
the people to make decisions with their vote they need information on what is
being done in their name. Society is
complex and to reflect this complexity requires an active media to provide lots
of different views of what is going on.
An active media can provide effective communication from the people to
their representatives and from the representatives to the people.
Our
definition of democracy must incorporate these points. We can add them:
Democracy is a system of
government of the people in which the people of the Nation exercise power
directly, or indirectly through their representatives, by a process in which
the will of the majority is determined.
In determining the will of the majority, all people, regardless of sex,
race or creed, are able to participate - each person having a vote of equal
value and the vote is exercised by way of a secret ballot without fear of
intimidation or violence…..
This
almost completes the definition, yet Abraham Lincoln spoke of government “for
the people”, and that means all the people, the minority as well as the
majority.
In his first inaugural
address in 1801, Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, said “All,
too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the
majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be
reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must
protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
However, full
democracy guarantees institutionalised, regular and open discussion of
different opinions and the effective protection of political minorities. It can
generally be described as government by debate; hence democracy needs to
develop appropriate procedures to secure the availability of both complete
information and different interpretations of that information. If opinions that differ from the beliefs of
the majority are oppressed by formal means the democratic system runs the risk
of collapsing, because the ruling majority will continue to reinforce its
power, eventually excluding the minority permanently from participating in
politics. If the opposition minority
has no chance of gaining majority support and status through open debate and
compelling arguments its only chance to gain the upper hand consists of a coup
d’etat. Democracy by contrast is characterised by the possibility to change
leaders and political direction without violence. Here too lies one of the roots of its
stability.
Where political
organisations fight each other in an uncompromising life and death struggle,
eventually the party in power will be driven by fear to introduce repressive
measures against its opponents. They in
their turn will find their only means of expression in the illegal use of
force. A degree of moderation is thus
necessary to democracy
In his book The Age of Consent George Monbiot states:
"Those that possess power will surrender it
only when they see that the costs – physical or psychological – of retaining it
are higher than the costs of losing it".
Hence the relationship between the majority and the minority
is one of the best tests of democracy, for each must play a constructive
part. Although the majority governs, it
has to recognise that there are limits to the restraints it can impose on the
minority, and that beyond a certain point (as for example, when fundamental
liberties are threatened) people are not prepared to submit to majority
rule. The task of the minority is to
make the majority justify its views and policies. To suppress dissenting views is as J. S. Mill
argued, “to assume infallibility in
public affairs.” In a healthy
democracy, the arguments of opponents are tolerated. They may be correct; but even when they are
not, or only partially so, they provide that controversy without which the
ideas of the majority become stale. The
absence of challenge engenders a mental laziness which causes people to lose “the clearer perception and livelier
impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (J. S. Mill, Essay on Liberty).
Opposition groups accept majority
decisions for both moral and practical reasons. Not only would it be thought wrong to resist
the greater opinion and to impose policy on a reluctant public, but also, under
a democratic constitution, the Opposition hopes that one day it will become the
majority. Should it do so, it will then
have the power to implement its own policy, and in turn will be dependent upon
the tolerance of its rivals. A wise
Opposition party, therefore, sets a good precedent.
Democracy is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for good government, and that ideas of the rule of law,
and of human rights, and the claims and liberties of groups within society must
often limit the will of democratic majorities.
There
can be no tyranny of the minority. On
every issue there is a minority and it is a changing minority issue by
issue. If their views are not taken
into account they will either withdraw from the process or a question starts to
be raised about the sense in which "for the people” is being applied
rather than a “large proportion of the people”. The fair treatment of minorities is
essential for a democratic society to function.
When Lincoln spoke of “for
the people” he was not only bearing in mind the minority. “For” is a qualitative element, which means
that decisions are beneficial to the people.
The “for” is there as we need to keep those individuals representing the
people when the natural tendency of politicians is to aggregate power for
themselves and start making decisions which benefit themselves and not the
people. This arrogation of power is one
of a number of forces, which need to be controlled for a sustainable
democracy. To sustain democracy and
keep governing for the people we need to have ongoing participation of a high
proportion of the people or else we cannot be sure we are reflecting their
views
I can therefore complete my definition of
democracy by adding a sentence to it:
Democracy is a system of government of the people in
which the people of the Nation exercise power directly, or indirectly through
their representatives, by a process in which the will of the majority is
determined. In determining the will of
the majority, all people, regardless of sex, race or creed, are able to
participate, - each person having a vote
of equal value and the vote is exercised by way of a secret ballot without fear
of intimidation or violence. In a
democratic society the majority will take into account the views of the
minority when exercising their will and so govern for all the people.
This is my definition and
as I trace the history of democracy in the United Kingdom this definition will
be my benchmark for progress.
With this benchmark we can trace
through our history:
How power came to be exercised by those elected by a
gradually increasing number of the people.
How religious and sexual discrimination has been diminished
by extending the franchise to different religions and giving the vote to women.
How secret ballots came to be accepted so that people could
vote without fear of intimidation or violence.
How the franchise was developed to ensure that each vote
was of equal value.
How we moved towards determining the will of the majority.
For it is only by taking all these issues together
that the will of the majority can be determined. If this process is distorted then freedom is
destroyed for if you cannot determine the will of the majority then people will
not have the ability to govern themselves in the manner in which they want.
A prior condition to the existence of democracy is
the rule of law and its acceptance by the people. Both depend on respect for the rule of law,
acknowledging the dignity of human beings and the need to preserve institutions
and laws that are above and superior to criminal behaviour.
If democratic government is to
be effective and enduring, it is essential that the laws passed by the elected
representatives of the citizens shall be applied and upheld. There must, therefore, be courts of law,
commanding the confidence of the people by their expeditious, efficient, firm
and impartial dispensation of justice.
Without such justice, the law would be held to ridicule, and eventually
order would degenerate into anarchy.
Consistent law making, which is fairly applied, is
needed to translate the will of the people into the decisions of the
government, which manifest them in law.
Every constitution aims at stability, is based on norms and rules
securing continuity, and provides means of interaction between government and
people
Although imprecise, the
concept of the mandate is important, for it expresses the basic requirement of
democracy that persons chosen to govern must keep to the broad policies of their
election statements. If they do not
(and subsequent events may make it difficult), the Opposition should ensure
that some explanation is given to the electorate in Parliament – and eventually
at the polls. In the final analysis,
therefore, the mandate is dependent on public opinion. In the words of Abraham Lincoln: “Public opinion is everything. With it nothing can fail, without it nothing
can succeed. He who moulds public
opinion goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, for the moulder of public
opinion makes statutes impossible to execute.”
The public as
a whole may be able to do little more than elect MPs; yet if the system of
government is to remain basically democratic in character, public opinion must
be effectively heard during the decision-making process. In addition to the ballot box at election
time and the not necessarily undistorted reflection of views through the media,
there are other devices developed to enable the decision-makers to hear the
voice of collective public opinion.
They include pressure groups, public opinion polls and referendum. All of these are becoming more important as
the use of the internet increases giving more opportunity for higher numbers of
people to be involved.
In
a democracy can the people vote away their own power? By a popular majority they can do so, but
the result would no longer be a democracy.
In any constitution the principle must be enshrined as unchangeable,
whether the constitution is a written one or unwritten. The rise of Hitler, who was democratically
elected, but then changed the Constitution, is a lesson from history which must
be learnt. In the case of the United
Kingdom we must rely on the judiciary defending this principle even if that
brings them into conflict with the politicians. There is also the irony that democracy can
only accommodate democratic principles.
Paine
in “Rights of Man” says:
“Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself,
in all cases, as the ages and generations, which preceded it… Man has no
property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations,
which are to follow”.
Lord
Chatham, speaking in Parliament in 1770 asks the question and gave his answer:
“What if the Commons should pass a vote
abolishing their own House, and surrendering the rights and liberties of the
people? Would it only be a matter
between God and their own consciences?
Would nobody else have anything to do with it? No!
You would have to do with it.
Every man in the kingdom would have to do with it. And every man in the kingdom would have the
right to insist upon the repeal of such a treasonable law.”
In a democracy the people
may vote to give away their democratic rights, but having done so they cannot
be stopped from taking them back again.
Anthony Arblaster in “Democracy” argues that:
"If every generation has
the right to decide for itself how it should be governed, then it cannot be
legitimate for one generation to will away that right on behalf of its
successors. One generation may sign
away democracy, or consent to dictatorship, but the next has an absolute right
to revoke those decisions. So, in
effect, popular sovereignty must be inalienable if it is to mean anything at
all substantial".
Sometimes politicians
equate silence with consent. They could
not be more wrong. Today the people of
the United Kingdom have been relatively quiet about the faults in our
democracy, but how long this situation will remain is open to question. Anthony Arblaster sums up this attitude
well:
"The facile equation of
silence with consent frequently results in those in power forming exaggerated
ideas of the degree of support or acquiescence they can command. They are then disagreeably surprised when
the resentments and even despair, which are so often concealed by silence
breakout in angry and violent rebellion".
Finally
democracy is about the wisdom of the crowd.
James Surowiecki says:
"It is a way of dealing with (if not
solving once and for all) the most fundamental problems of co-operation and
co-ordination: How do we live together?
How can living together work to our mutual benefit? Democracy helps people answer those
questions because the democratic experience is an experience of not getting
everything you want. It’s an experience
of seeing your opponents win and get what you hoped to have, and of accepting
it, because you believe that they will not destroy the things you value and
because you know you will have another chance to get what you want. In that sense, a healthy democracy
inculcates the virtues of compromise – which is after all, the foundation of
the social contract – and change. The
decisions that democracies make may not demonstrate the wisdom of the crowd. The decision to make them democratically
does".
The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
"Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country
directly or through freely chosen representatives.... The will of the people shall be the basis of
the authority of government. This will
be expressed in periodic and genuine elections".
John
Stuart Mill summed it up long ago:
"There is no difficulty in showing that the
ideally best form of government is that in which the sovereignty, or supreme
controlling power in the last resort, is vested in the entire aggregate of the
community; every citizen not only having a voice in the exercise of that
ultimate sovereignty, but being, at least occasionally, called on to take an
actual part in the government, by the personal discharge of some public
function, local or general".
No comments:
Post a Comment