Democracy is a Greek term. It is divided into two parts, that is, ‘demos’ which means people, and ‘kratein’ a Greek word that means to rule. When put together, the meaning of two meanings are consolidated into one definition- the people to rule.
This term is however modified in meaning nowadays and it can be used in various applications; that is, it is used in a variety of ways depending on the time of use, the place where it is used, and the circumstances under which it is used. In fact, it is still acquiring new meanings as time goes by. It can be classified as both a social and political term.
Following the fact that it has various definitions, we can define democracy in three or more ways. Firstly, democracy can be defined as a political course taken by a certain group of individuals who support the government by electing representatives on the side of the government. Secondly, democracy can be a political system in which absolute power is within the body of the people who have the power to elect their representatives. Last, but not least, democracy can be described as a doctrine that the statistical mainstream of a structured cluster can make resolutions binding on the whole group.
Generally and to most people, democracy puts forward the assumption of a wide popular involvement in the support and conduct and to the benefit of a particular government. However, the idea has deviated from the expected conditions and opinions that are promoted by those who promote democracy.
There are various contrasting differences that can be identified when describing democracy. The distinctions are made by placing prominence on the various historical contexts on use of the term. There has been a contrast between political and social democracy, with the opinions presented by the various groups failing to give evidence concerning which type of democracy preceded the other, whether it was the social democracy or the political democracy. On one hand, the liberal democrats consider the achievement of democracy in politics as the onset for economic and social democracy, the socialists argue that real political democracy is implausible until there is social democracy.
The next point of contest is whether democracy is a social or political action goal or is it a procedure that should be applied with the aim of achieving a particular goal in the two fields; social and political fields. From a historical perspective, it has been evident that keen interest has been in the procedural functions that democracy has played in the issue of policymaking. Generally, it is usually assumed that any policy that comes about in a way considered to be democratic way is always a good policy.
However, we cannot entirely agree that all the good policies that are made are made following democratic procedures. Focusing attention on the way our leaders try to achieve their goals set, be they religious, political, economic, and social goals, they tend to use whatever procedures that work for them to ensure that they achieve their goals which they consider democratic.
We also have to look at the results of any given democracy. We should look at whether the goals are basically to achieve equality or to be liberated. Both equality and liberation are prominent in most of the doctrines that deal with democracy and the discrepancies with which they are represented are not liked. We all know that if we are looking for equality, then even the slaves can be granted equality and remain slaves. On the other hand, if the bar is heavy on the liberty side, then strong people can be given the liberalization of the strong in society to oppress the weak. If this is what can be the final achievement, we cannot say we have got democracy. In line with this, there are two groups of people who fight for democracy. The liberals emphasize liberty while the socialists place equality first. This creates imbalance and if both groups cannot compromise the stands they have taken, then democracy cannot be achieved.
Owing to the fact democracy is an ideology that is adapted mostly by a government; it can be divided into various groups. Firstly, we have direct and indirect democracy. In a direct democracy, the system of politics in place gives the people a chance to manipulate the policies that are put in place. This can be done by them voting directly or holding a referendum on certain issues that arise in the system. This system is praised because of its ability to decentralize power since this power is shared with the majority who decide the fate of a particular issue. Due to this, the policies made are likely to favor the individual needs of the majority rather than the few who are in powerful positions. However, it is said that direct democracy is open to emotive dictators who can manage to appeal to people’s emotions. It is also said to be impractical and lacks efficiency. In addition to this, referendums are very expensive and slow and can result in a lack of interest from the public and exhaustion of the voters. It is after these considerations being raised that governments resorted to indirect democracy.
Indirect democracy is whereby the involvement of people in the governance is done through the election of a few members who represent the rest of the public. This system has two forms, the delegation and the representative forms. In deliberative democracy, delegates are chosen and given the responsibility of ensuring the wishes of the people are fulfilled. During their working period, delegates are expected to put on the air the pronouncements made by those who elected them. Failure to do so will lead to the immediate recall of the representative in the shortest time possible.
Unlike, delegative democracy, representative democracy is a system that allows those that are elected by the people to make decisions on behalf of the people who elected them. It is not easy to recall the elected representatives once they are elected, whether the decisions they make while in service are not views of those who elected them.
Indirect democracy has been criticized for its consolidation of power. It is a system that can increase the capability of a government to engage in corrupt deals. In addition, we cannot be sure that the elected people are emotive dictators, and to make matters worse, they cannot be stripped of power easily.
However, paradigmatic change has led to the description of the representative democracy defines a republic. There are even ways that have been come up with that are used in the differentiating of direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy is considered a very broadly authorized majority rule, while the other one is considered more narrow supervision by the police and the army who are engaged in the protection of the property rights of the individuals. These aspects are nonetheless, dismissed as not being uneventful to the process of decision making. To change democracy as a system and the way that it works for society, various substitute models are believed to be beneficial to the people include anticipatory democracy. This one depends on a certain degree of disciplined expectancy of the prospective future that is always informed about the market, to guide the decisions that are going to be made. The other model is the deliberate democracy model. This one focuses on the consideration of all public opinions on alternatives that can be made on the various policies from all directions, and it takes time to follow a line of investigation on them. Another model that is used is the grassroots democracy, which highlights the placing of responsibility in the hands of small spread-out units at the level of the municipality by having the urban authorities withdrawing from being in charge of these areas. Ultimately, they will be in a position to make binding decisions because they have the power to establish an official legal authority.
For certain systems to be described as a democracy, there have to be various features observed. One of the most important issues is the restrictions that are put on the constitutional rights of an individual, especially when it comes to voting; which involves who is entitled to vote. In a place where there is any particular group that is left out, for instance, slaves or women, democracy cannot be achieved. Some of the exclusions made were made based on racial grounds, gender lines, and so on and they were connected to legal issues concerning what defined personhood, and they occurred in countries that considered themselves democracies.
Gender was particularly very serious where we had no women voting until after a great struggle, where New Zealand was the first to allow its women to take part in the voting exercise, in 1893, September. Most of the participation in voting by women especially in the Americas and in Europe started in the twentieth century.
The voting right can be used to limit the implementation of democracy and there are various ways in which this can be done. One example is that of China where there is one party to which a candidate is approved to be chosen to lead. In such a situation the people are limited in their choice. Another instance is where religion limits one to vie for a particular post. This is applied in Iran where one has to belong to a certain religious group to be able to run as a candidate for a particular post, and this is highly regulated by the religious authorities who have the mandate to eliminate those from other parties. This tends to discourage even the voters, something that stands in the way of democracy.
The presence of a political party is paramount to the achievement of democracy. According to Marshall L who was an expert in the field of spreading democracy to other nations, there was no other way for these nations to get the system working for them unless they adopt democracy. This has placed the presence of multi-party politics as a prerequisite for a country to claim that it is a democracy.
Apart from voting rights and multiparty politics, liberal democracy appreciates the freedom of speech and the freedom to enquire. One other thing that is considered important is the obligation to toleration of discrepancy. In a country that considers itself a democracy, there are always fights and disagreements that are attributed to the issues that are concerned with freedom of speech.
Elections were created to facilitate the achievement of democracy. However, the time has proved that they are becoming tools by which totalitarian regimes/ dictatorships portray a counterfeit sense of democracy. This has disqualified the aspect of electing leaders as being a feature of democracy. Initially, it was believed that elections would always make it possible to have a peaceful transition from one regime to the other. Since it became common for the leaders to use elections to make the world assume that there is the exercise of democracy, the elections are just a mere formality and not anything that can be linked to democracy.
Direct democracy was efficient with a manageable number of people. With the increase in population, it is difficult to implement democracy. This is one of the arguments that led to the rise of representative democracy. In the world today, there is the ambition of making everyone get involved in the system; something that has created concern on how the currently known system can be expanded to cater for these populations.
In conclusion, democracy can be seen as both a political and social ideal that can be classified historically according to the context in which it appears. It can be a goal that has to be attained in whatever way, it can be a procedure that is applied in the quest to attain certain political and social ends; it has various features that can be used in identifying it. We should also be aware that the system by which countries are classified as democracies was put forward by the European Nations. Countries should therefore be keen to adopt the system. This should be done with the ethnic background and the culture of these countries in mind so that they reap only the beneficial effects of the system.
References
- Hill, T. (2004). The Concept of Meaning.
- Democracy. (2008). Encyclopaedia Britannica. Web.
- Beckman, L. (2008). Who Should Vote? Conceptualizing Universal Suffrage in Studies.
- Behrouzi, M. (2006). Democracy as the Political Empowerment of the People.