CHAPTER 1 What is Democracy? Why Democracy? · democracy necessary
The$word$“democracy”$literally$means$“rule$by$the$people...
34
Transcript of The$word$“democracy”$literally$means$“rule$by$the$people...
The word “democracy” literally means “rule by the people”, taken from the Greek terms, demos (meaning “people”), and kratos (meaning “rule”). It is a poli@cal concept and form of government, where all people are supposed to have equal voices in shaping policy (typically expressed through a vote for representa@ves).
OF
DE
MO
CR
AC
Y
The following slides show the briefest overview of democracy throughout the years. Of course, the earlier forms of democracy were not close to what we consider as democracy today, but were often important precursors or “proto-democracies” that laid down important foundations and principles.
PROTO DEMOCRACIES
Ancient Greece -‐ Various forms of rule, ul@mately resul@ng in Athenian Democracy, a form of “direct democracy,” as opposed to representa@ve democracy. An exclusive club, however, as only adult male Athenian ci@zens that had completed military training could vote. Women, slaves, and foreigners could not.
600 – 5 B.C.E.
ANCIENT GREECE
Ancient Roman Republic -‐ Planted the seeds of “representa@ve democracy.” Like other systems of the same period, it was exclusive, and not like democracies we consider today. AMer this @me, Rome had an emperor characterized by dictatorial rule, and eventual decline.
Ancient India -‐ Early forms of democracy, republics and popular assemblies, especially where Buddhism and Jainism was more prevalent. (Today, Hinduism is the main religion in India, but in ancient @mes, Brahmanism, as it has also been referred to, co-‐existed with Buddhism and Jainism. While Brahmanism was also the main religion then, Buddhism and Jainism were far more widespread.) The caste system, though not as rigid then as it would later become, nonetheless meant it was not a type of democracy we think of today, just like Athenian democracy and the Roman republic systems would not be.
England 1265 -‐ Parliamentary system. The Magna Carta restricted the rights of kings. Elec@on was very limited to a small minority. The monarchy’s influence over Parliament would eventually wane. England 1688 -‐ Revolu@on of 1688 saw the overthrow of King James II, paving way for a stronger parliamentary democracy, strengthened by the 1689 English Bill of Rights.
ENGLAND
The American adoption of the Constitution provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. Considered the first liberal democracy, but started off with limitations: voting by adult white males only (before 1788, propertied white males only). Women and slaves (predominantly African) would have to wait a long time still.
1788
The French Revolu@on and the Declara@on of the Rights of Man and of the Ci@zen -‐ a precursor to interna@onal human rights conven@ons, for it was universal in nature (but s@ll only applied to men, not women or slaves). This and the American Cons@tu@on are considered influen@al for many liberal democracies to come aMer.
DEMOCRACIES OF THE WORLD
The ideals of democracy are so appealing to ci@zens around the world, that many have sacrificed their livelihoods, even their lives, to fight for it. Indeed, our era of “civiliza@on” is characterized as much by war and conflict as it is by peace and democracy. The twen@eth century alone has oMen been called “the century of war.” In a way, the amount of propaganda and repression some non-‐democra@c states set up against their own people is a testament to the people’s desire for more open and democra@c forms of government. That is, the more people are perceived to want it, the more extreme a non-‐democra@c state apparatus has to be to hold on to power.
SACRIFICE
SEPERA
TION OF PO
WER
S
CIVILIAN
CONTR
OL OF TH
E MILITAR
Y
FREEDO
M OF TH
E PR
ESS
FREEDO
M OF RE
LIGION & SPEEC
H
BURE
AUCR
ACY SU
PPORT
S CO
MMON GOOD
CITIZEN PAR
TICIPA
TION
RESPEC
T FO
R MINORITIES
FREQ
UEN
T ELEC
TIONS
EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION
RULE OF LAW RULE OF LAW RULE OF LAW RULE OF LAW RULE OF LAW RULE OF LAW RULE OF LAW RULE OF LAW
“Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state … is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situa@on is full of promise ….” ~ Plato, The Laws (4th Century BCE)
Democracy and an educated ci2zenry go hand in hand. Public educa2on is the great equalizer.
“Public schools must be understood as public not simply because they serve the public, but because they establish us as a public.”
Educa@on raises the benefit from social par@cipa@on because it facilitates seamless informa@on exchange. Educated people are bemer able to express what they know, to inform, and to persuade. They are also bemer able to acquire new informa@on, to understand, and to learn. Schooling also teaches rules of behavior that make a discussion between educated people both more informa@ve and less likely to degenerate into a quarrel
In a democra@c government key principles include free and open elec@ons, the rule of law, and a separa@on of powers, typically into the following:
Legislature (law-‐making) ExecuEve (actually governing within those laws) Judiciary (system of courts to administer jus@ce)
Pillars of democracy
It is felt that separa@ng powers will prevent tyrannical rule (authoritarianism, etc). Cri@cs of this may argue that this leads to extra bureaucracy and thus inefficient execu@on of policy. Not all countries have or need such a complete separa@on and many have some level of overlap. Some governments such as the US have a clear separa@on of powers while in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, a parliamentary system somewhat merges the legislature and execu@ve.
Civilian control over the military is paramount for the func@oning of a democracy. Not only must the military be held to account by the government (and, be extension, the people), but the military leadership must fully believe in a democra@c system if instability through military coups and dictatorships are to be avoided. Indeed, some na@ons do not have full-‐@me professional armies for the reason that coups and military take-‐over is less likely. Others, notably the more established powers, typically do have it, because they have had a recent history of war and their place in the world stage may make it seem a necessary requirement.
Pillars of Democracy
To achieve the openness that transparency and accountability gives, there is an important need for a free press, independent from government. Such a media often represents the principle of the universal right to free speech. This combination is supposed to allow people to make informed choices and decisions thereby contributing to political debate, productively.
Freedoms are considered fundamental in a democra@c society. These fundamental freedoms include freedom of opinion, thought, belief and expression, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of associa@on and peaceful assembly. It is almost impossible to imagine how a democracy would work without protec@on for these most basic rights and freedoms.
Transparency and accountability also requires more bureaucracy as decisions and processes need to be recorded and made available for the general public to access, debate and discuss, if necessary.
Pillars of Democracy
Vo@ng in a democracy is based on the assump@on of a free and informed decision. Without these you end up with an autocra@c system pretending to be a democra@c system while people believe they have made a free and informed choice. Over @me, as a popula@on becomes accustomed to living in such a system a self-‐perpetua@ng belief takes hold where the popula@on believe that the system is democra@c, even as informed opinion, poli@cal diversity and choices are reduced. Such a system is then able to sustain itself, having grown from the ini@al illusion of free choice.
Pillars of Democracy
Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and J. S. Mill expressed fears of a “Tyranny of the Majority”. If the majority rules, what is to stop it from expropriating the minority, or from tyrannizing it in other ways by enforcing the majority's religion, language, or culture on the minority? Given the opportunity, it was argued, a majority would surely trample on the fundamental rights of minorities. Property rights were perceived as particularly vulnerable, since presumably any majority of citizens with little or no property would be tempted to infringe the rights of the propertied minority. Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules (entrenched rules), constitutional limits on the powers of the legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber.
Many democracies have rules that elec@ons must be held regularly, say every 4 or 5 years. The short life span of governments is there for an important reason: it prevents a party becoming entrenched, dictatorial, stagnant or less caring of the popula@on over @me. Compe@@on in elec@ons encourages people to stay on their toes; governments knowing they must deliver, and poten@al candidates/par@es knowing they can par@cipate with a chance.
Pillars of Democracy
First Past the Post (Winner Takes All)
The first individual to receive more votes than any other candidate wins the election.
Political Party
Percentage of Popular Vote
Percentage of Seats in the Legislature
Conservative
40%
100%
New Democrats
30%
0%
Liberal
30%
0%
Winner
60% of the popula@on did not vote for the winner.
Some democratic countries divide their territories into electoral districts (Canada), each of which is entitled to a single seat in the legislature, the seat being won by the candidate who gains the most votes—hence the terms first past the post in Britain and winner take all in the United States. As critics of this system point out, in districts contested by more than two candidates, it is possible to gain the seat with less than a strict majority of votes (50 percent plus one). As a result, a party that receives only a minority of votes in the entire country could win a majority of seats in the legislature.
Candidates share power based on the percentage of votes received.
60% 20% 20%
ProporEonal RepresentaEon
Political Party
Percentage of Popular Vote
Percentage of Seats in the Legislature
Conservative
40%
40%
New Democrats
30%
30%
Liberal
30%
30%
Winner
Systems of propor@onal representa@on are designed to ensure a closer correspondence between the propor@on of votes cast for a party and the propor@on of seats it receives. With few excep@ons, Con@nental European countries have adopted some form of propor@onal representa@on, as have Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. Winner-‐take-‐all systems remain in the United States, Canada, and, for parliamentary elec@ons, in Britain.
CORPORATE PRESSURE
“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither” ~ Benjamin Franklin
POLITICAL O
RIENTED BU
REAUCRACY
Defined as indifference towards politics, political apathy is an unrecognized threat that plagues all countries. Politics have constantly attempted to rally the democratic spirit. Repeatedly reminding people to take advantage of their right to vote however doesn’t inspire action. Individuals must understand that the immorality of political apathy does not lie in the lack of fulfillment of civic duties. Instead, political apathy is an issue, threat and crime because of its offense against society. The most immediate impact of political apathy on a country is a decline in political involvement, which at first may appear harmless. As involvement and interest in government and politics declines, the element of humanity is taken away from government, and politics is no longer is of, by, or for the people. Without the expression of real individuals and their concerns, government stops being a living entity of the people and becomes a mindless machine. What is left is a nation at a standstill and a society abandoned. If such a government faced the dilemmas of its people, would it be able to produce a response tailored to popular needs, or a response at all? In addition, political apathy places the future of society in danger. Political apathy is more than choosing not to be involved in politics, it is a surrender of social investment.
The short termism of governments in democracies has had the unintentional effect of causing governments to become more and more populist; appealing to public opinion rather than to reasoned concepts of coherent policy.
More propaganda may be needed in democracies than some totalitarian regimes, in order to gain/maintain support for some aggressive ac@ons and policies (such as waging war, rolling back hard-‐won rights, etc.)
PROPAGANDA
IMPERIALIST WARS
It is a common concern in many democratic countries that those with sufficient funds, or fund-raising capability are the ones who will become the final candidates that voters choose from. Some criticize candidates for “selling out” to mega donor, who then expect favors in return. Others, who may be more democratic, but are either poor, or lack the finances of the leading contenders, or will not likely support policies that influential mega donors support, will often lose out.
CAMPAIGN FUNDING
Even in established democracies, there are pressures that threaten various democra@c founda@ons. A democra@c system’s openness also allows it to amract those with vested interests to use the democra@c process as a means to amain power and influence, even if they do not hold democra@c principles dear. This may also signal a weakness in the way some democracies are set up. In principle, there may be various ways to address this, but in reality once power is amained by those who are not genuinely support democracy, rarely is it easily given up.
