DEMOCRACY

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to

participate equally either directly or, through elected representatives,
indirectly in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by
which their society is run. The term originates from the Greek (dmokrata)
"rule of the people", which was found from (dmos) "people" and (kratos)
"power" or "rule" in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then
existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym
(aristokratia) "rule of an elite". Democracy contrasts with forms of government
where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or
where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy.
Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now
ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic,
oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Today when we talk about democracy we
refer mostly to the definition provided by Abraham Lincoln, Rule of the
people, for the people and by the people.
Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of
which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One
form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have
direct and active participation in the political decision-making. In most modern
democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power
but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this
is called a representative democracy or democratic republic.
No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, freedom
and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics since ancient
times. These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before
the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a
representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable
restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative and the
freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties
which are typically protected by a constitution.

One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: 1)

upward control, i.e. sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority, 2)
political equality, and 3) social norms by which individuals and institutions only
consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control
and political equality.
The term "democracy" is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy,
which is a variant of representative democracy that may include elements
such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected
officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights;
and elements of civil society outside the government.[citation needed] Roger
Scruton argues that democracy alone cannot provide personal and political
freedom unless the institutions of civil society are also present.
In some countries, notably in the United Kingdom which originated the
Westminster system, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary
sovereignty, while maintaining judicial independence. In the United States,
separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute. In India, the world's
largest democracy, parliamentary sovereignty is subject to a constitution
which includes judicial review. Other uses of "democracy" include that of
direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the
context of a political state, the principles also are applicable to private
organisations.
Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. Hence,
democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of
the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights.
An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive
elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally . Furthermore,
freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press
are considered to be essential rights that allow eligible citizens to be
adequately informed and able to vote according to their own interests.

It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity
of all voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society. With its
emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the all voters,
democracy can also be characterised as a form of political collectivism
because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens
have an equal say in lawmaking.

While democracy is often equated with the republican form of government, the
term "republic" classically has encompassed both democracies and
aristocracies. Some democracies are constitutional monarchies, such as the
United Kingdom. Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and
practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more
freedom for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not
structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from
the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the
separation of powers in its own favour, then a branch of the system can
accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy. Under this model,
the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent
powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in
conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical
division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. It can
be contrasted with the fusion of powers in a parliamentary system where the
executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified.

Parliament - legislature

Prime Minister - Cabinet, Government Depts & Civil Service executive

Courts judiciary

Inefficiencies
Economists like Milton Friedman have strongly criticised the efficiency of
democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational voter. Their
argument is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues,
especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues
on which they are fairly knowledgeable.
Popular rule as a faade
The 20th-century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca
(independently) argued that democracy was illusory, and served only to mask
the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the
unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the
masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that
democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from
oppression to manipulation. As Louis Brandeis once professed, "We may
have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few,
but we can't have both."
All political parties in Canada are now cautious about criticism of the high
level of immigration, because, as noted by The Globe and Mail, "in the early
1990s, the old Reform Party was branded 'racist' for suggesting that
immigration levels be lowered from 250,000 to 150,000." As Professor of
Economics Don J. DeVoretz pointed out, "In a liberal democracy such as
Canada, the following paradox persists. Even though the majority of
respondents answer yes to the question: 'Are there too many immigrant
arrivals each year?' immigrant numbers continue to rise until a critical set of
economic costs appear."
Mob rule
Plato's The Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the
narration of Socrates: "Democracy, which is a charming form of government,
full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and
unequaled alike." In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of government from best to
worst. Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a serious critique of the
political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only Kallipolis, an aristocracy led
by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the wisest men), is a just form of
4

government.
James Madison critiqued direct democracy (which he referred to simply as
"democracy") in Federalist No. 10, arguing that representative democracy
which he described using the term "republic"is a preferable form of
government, saying: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal
security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their
lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Madison offered that republics
were superior to democracies because republics safeguarded against tyranny
of the majority, stating in Federalist No. 10: "the same advantage which a
republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed
by a large over a small republic".
Political instability
More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability.
As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent
changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and
internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline
grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough
to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with
regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so
hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the
idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which
economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priorities.
This opportunist alliance not only has the handicap of having to cater to too
many ideologically opposing factions, but it is usually short lived since any
perceived or actual imbalance in the treatment of coalition partners, or
changes to leadership in the coalition partners themselves, can very easily
result in the coalition partner withdrawing its support from the government.
Fraudulent elections
In representative democracies, it may not benefit incumbents to conduct fair
elections. A study showed that incumbents who rig elections stay in office 2.5
times as long as those who permit fair elections. In countries with income

above per capita, democracies have been found to be less prone to violence,
but below that threshold, more prone violence. Election misconduct is more
likely in countries with low per capita incomes, small populations, rich in
natural resources, and a lack of institutional checks and balances. SubSaharan countries, as well as Afghanistan, all tend to fall into that category.
Governments that have frequent elections tend to have significantly more
stable economic policies than those governments who have infrequent
elections. However, this trend does not apply to governments that hold
fraudulent elections.
Opposition
Main article: Anti-democratic thought
Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the
previously existing government, and many times it has faced opposition from
social elites. The implementation of a democratic government within a nondemocratic state is typically brought about by democratic revolution.
Monarchy had traditionally been opposed to democracy, and to this day
remains opposed to the abolition of its privileges, although often political
compromise has been reached in the form of shared government.
Post-Enlightenment

ideologies

such

as

fascism,

Nazism

and

neo-

fundamentalism oppose democracy on different grounds, generally citing that

the concept of democracy as a constant process is flawed and detrimental to
a preferable course of development.
Development
Several philosophers and researchers outlined historical and social factors
supporting the evolution of democracy. Cultural factors like Protestantism
influenced the development of democracy, rule of law, human rights and
political liberty (the faithful elected priests, religious freedom and tolerance
has been practiced).
Others mentioned the influence of wealth (e.g. S. M. Lipset, 1959). In a
related theory, Ronald Inglehart suggests that the increase in living standards
has convinced people that they can take their basic survival for granted, and
led to increased emphasis on self-expression values, which is highly
6

correlated to democracy
Carroll Quigley concludes that the characteristics of weapons are the main
predictor of democracy: Democracy tends to emerge only when the best
weapons available are easy for individuals to buy and use. By the 1800s,
guns were the best weapon available, and in America, almost everyone could
afford to buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily. Governments
couldn't do any better: It became the age of mass armies of citizen soldiers
with guns Similarly, Periclean Greece was an age of the citizen soldier and
democracy.
Recently established theories stress the relevance of education and human
capital and within them of cognitive ability to increasing tolerance, rationality,
political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and cognitive
ability are distinguished: a cognitive effect (competence to make rational
choices, better information processing) and an ethical effect (support of
democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on
intelligence.
Evidence that is consistent with conventional theories of why democracy
emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Recent statistical
analyses have challenged modernisation theory by demonstrating that there is
no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to emerge
when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less unequal. Neither is
there convincing evidence that increased reliance on oil revenues prevents
democratisation, despite a vast theoretical literature called "The Resource
Curse" that asserts that oil revenues sever the link between citizen taxation
and government accountability, the key to representative democracy. The lack
of evidence for these conventional theories of democratisation have led
researchers to search for the "deep" determinants of contemporary political
institutions, be they geographical or demographic.
In the 21st century, democracy has become such a popular method of
reaching decisions that its application beyond politics to other areas such as
entertainment, food and fashion, consumerism, urban planning, education,
art, literature, science and theology has been criticised as "the reigning

dogma of our time". The argument is that applying a populist or market-driven

approach to art and literature for example, means that innovative creative
work goes unpublished or unproduced. In education, the argument is that
essential but more difficult studies are not undertaken. Science, which is a
truth-based discipline, is particularly corrupted by the idea that the correct
conclusion can be arrived at by popular vote.
Robert Michels asserts that although democracy can never be fully realised,
democracy may be developed automatically in the act of striving for
democracy: "The peasant in the fable, when on his death-bed, tells his sons
that a treasure is buried in the field. After the old man's death the sons dig
everywhere in order to discover the treasure. They do not find it. But their
indefatigable labor improves the soil and secures for them a comparative wellbeing. The treasure in the fable may well symbolise democracy.
Dr. Harald Wydra, in his book Communism and The Emergence of
Democracy, maintains that the development of democracy should not be
viewed as a purely procedural or as a static concept but rather as an ongoing
"process of meaning formation". Drawing on Claude Lefort's idea of the empty
place of power, that "power emanates from the people [] but is the power of
nobody", he remarks that democracy is reverence to a symbolic mythical
authority as in reality, there is no such thing as the people or demos.
Democratic political figures are not supreme rulers but rather temporary
guardians of an empty place. Any claim to substance such as the collective
good, the public interest or the will of the nation is subject to the competitive
struggle and times of for gaining the authority of office and government. The
essence of the democratic system is an empty place, void of real people
which can only be temporarily filled and never be appropriated. The seat of
power is there, but remains open to constant change. As such, what
"democracy" is or what is "democratic" progresses throughout history as a
continual and potentially never ending process of social construction.
In 2010 a study by a German military think tank has analyzed how peak oil
might change the global economy. The study raises fears for the survival of
democracy itself. It suggests that parts of the population could perceive the
upheaval triggered by peak oil as a general systemic crisis. This would create
8

"room for ideological and extremist alternatives to existing forms of

government".

Irrational voters[
Free-market-oriented economists since Milton Friedman have strongly
criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on the argument that
voters are irrational, among other things. Their criticism towards democracy is
that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially
relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which
they are fairly knowledgeable.
The masses are not adequately educated to be able to foresee the betterment
of the community they belong to, and therefore are unable to cast a vote to
that effect. But given the right to vote, an uneducated man would certainly
cast a vote which will more likely be wrong as effected by the personality
charisma of the candidate or some other superficial reasons. An ordinary
voter may also be lured into casting a vote on the basis of financial help or
some other petty promises.
Efficiency of the system
Chicago economist Donald Wittman has written numerous works attempting
to counter these common views of his colleagues. He argues democracy is
efficient based on the premise of rational voters, competitive elections, and
relatively low political transactions costs. Economist Bryan Caplan argues,
while Wittman makes strong arguments for the latter two points, he cannot
overcome the insurmountable evidence in favor of voter irrationality. It still
remains the Achilles heel of democratic government. The problem is not mere
lack of information; it is that voters badly interpret and judge the information
they do have. Unfortunately, according to Caplan, the problem lies in the fact
that the relative cost of learning about a particular issue is very high compared
to the cost of not knowing that information. This really becomes an issue
when those ignorant people vote, which they will do because of the good
feeling it gives them. Other economists, such as Meltzer and Richard, have
added that as industrial activity in a democracy increases, so too do the
people's demands for welfare. However, because of the median voter
9

theorem, only a few people actually make the decisions in the country, and
many may be unhappy with those decisions. In this way, they argue,
democracies are inefficient.
Wealth disparity
This could result in a wealth disparity in such a country, or even racial
discrimination. Fierlbeck (1998) points out that such a result is not necessarily
due to a failing in the democratic process, but rather, "because democracy is
too responsive to the desires of a large middle class increasingly willing to
disregard the muted voices of economically marginalized groups within its
own borders."[3] The criticism remains that the will of the democratic majority
may not always be in the best interest of all citizens within the country or
beneficial to the future of the country itself.
Sociological criticisms
Lack of political education
Furthermore, some have argued that voters may not be educated enough to
exercise their democratic right. A population with low intellect may not be
capable of making beneficial decisions. They argue that the lack of rationality
or even education is being taken advantage of by politicians, that compete
more in the way of public relations and tactics, than in ideology. While
arguments against democracy is often taken by advocates of democracy as
an attempt to maintain or revive traditional hierarchy in order to justify
autocratic rule, many extensions have been made to develop the argument
further. This is interesting given Lipset's 1959 essay about the requirements
for forming democracy, where he found that good education was present in
almost all emerging democracies. However, education alone cannot sustain a
democracy, though Caplan did note in 2005 that as a person's education
increases, their thinking tends to be more in line with most economists.
Benefits of a specialised society
One such argument is that the benefits of a specialised society may be
compromised by democracy. As ordinary citizens are encouraged to take part
in the political life of the country, they have the power to directly influence the
outcome of government policies through the democratic procedures of voting,

10

campaigning and the use of press. The result is that government policies may
be more influenced by non-specialist opinions and thereby the effectiveness
compromised, especially if a policy is very technically sophisticated and/or the
general public inadequately informed. For example, there is no guarantee that
those who campaign about the government's economic policies are
themselves professional economists or academically competent in this
particular discipline, regardless of whether they were well-educated.
Essentially this means that a democratic government may not be providing
the most good for the most amount of people. However, some have argued
that this should not even be the goal of democracies because the minority
could be seriously mistreated under that purported goal.
Political criticisms
Uncontested good
Additionally, some political scientists question the notion that democracy is an
"uncontested good."[7] If we base our critique on the definition of democracy
as governance based on the will of the majority, there can be some
foreseeable consequences to this form of rule. For example, Fierlbeck (1998:
12) points out that the middle class majority in a country may decide to
redistribute wealth and resources into the hands of those that they feel are
most capable of investing or increasing them.
Cyclical theory of government
Machiavelli put forth the idea that democracies will tend to cater to the whims
of the people, who then follow false ideas to entertain themselves, squander
their reserves, and do not deal with potential threats to their rule until it is too
late to oppose them. He put forth a cyclical theory of government where
monarchies

always

decay

into

aristocracies,

that

then

decay

into

democracies, which decay into anarchy, then tyranny, then monarchy. An

Example is the timeline of France before, during, and after the French
Revolution until the last Bourbon Monarch.
Political Coase Theorem
Some have tried to argue that the Coase Theorem applies to political markets
as well. Acemoglu, however, provides evidence to the contrary, claiming that

11

the Coase Theorem is only valid while there are "rules of the game," so to
speak, that are being enforced by the government. But when there is nobody
there to enforce the rules for the government itself, there is no way to
guarantee that low transaction costs will lead to an efficient outcome in
democracies.
Political instability
More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability.
As governments are frequently elected on and off there tend to be frequent
changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and
internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline
grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough
to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with
regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so
hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the
idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which
economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority. However,
Downs argued that the political market works much the same way as the
economic market, and that there could potentially be an equilibrium in the
system because of democratic process. However, he eventually argued that
imperfect knowledge in politicians and voters prevented the reaching of that
equilibrium.
Oppression by the majority
The constitutions of many countries have parts of them that restrict the nature
of the types of laws that legislatures can pass. A fundamental idea behind
some of these restrictions, is that the majority of a population and its elected
legislature can often be the source of minority persecutions, such as with
racial discrimination. Some countries throughout the world have judiciaries
where judges can serve for long periods of time, and often serve under
appointed posts. This is often balanced, however, by the fact that some trials
are decided by juries. While many, like Wittman, have argued that
democracies work much the same way as the free market and that there is
competition among parties to prevent oppression by the majority, others have
argued that there is actually very little competition among political parties in

12

democracies due to the high cost associated with campaigning.

John T. Wenders, a professor of Economics at the University of Idaho, writes:
The unpopular answer, of course, is no. Freedom and democracy are
different. In words attributed to Scottish historian Alexander Tytler: 'A
democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist
until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of
the public treasury.' Democracy evolves into kleptocracy. A majority bullying a
minority is just as bad as a dictator, communist or otherwise, doing so.
Democracy is two coyotes and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
There is a difference between democracy and freedom. Freedom is not
measured by the ability to vote. It is measured by the breadth of those things
on which we do not vote.
US President James Madison devoted the whole of Federalist No. 10 to a
scathing critique of democracy and offered that republics are a far better
solution, saying: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they
have been violent in their deaths." Madison offered that republics were
superior to democracies because republics safeguarded against tyranny of
the majority, stating in Federalist No. 10: "the same advantage which a
republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed
by a large over a small republic".
Philosophical criticisms
Mob rule
Main article: Ochlocracy
Plato's the Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the
narration of Socrates: "Democracy, which is a charming form of government,
full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and
unequaled alike."[15] In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of government from best
to worst. Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a serious critique of
the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only Kallipolis, an aristocracy
led by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the wisest men) is a just form of
13

government.
Violation of Property Rights
Some Right-Libertarians criticize democracy because they claim it is
impractical or immoral.[16] The criticism for impracticality is essentially that in
order to be logically consistent people would need to vote on all action, and
that this would lead to the extermination of the human species. Others criticize
democracy for being immoral on the grounds that it coercively involves
people, i.e. it violates voluntarism and property rights.
Timocracy and oligarchy
The other forms of government place too much focus on lesser virtues, and
degenerate into each other from best to worst, starting with Timocracy, which
overvalues honour. Then comes Oligarchy, overvaluing wealth, which is
followed by Democracy. In Democracy, the oligarchs, or merchant, are unable
to wield their power effectively and the people take over, electing someone
who plays on their wishes, by throwing lavish festivals etc. However, the
government grants the people too much freedom, and the state degenerates
into the fourth form, Tyranny/mob rule.
Role of republicanism
The Founding Fathers of the United States intended to address this criticism
by combining democracy with republicanism. A constitution would limit the
powers of what a simple majority can accomplish.
Moral decay
Some thinkers believe democracy will result in the people's distrust and
disrespect of governments or religious sanctity. The distrust and disrespect
pervades to all parts of society whenever and wherever there is seniority and
juniority, for example between a parent and a child, a teacher and a student.
This in turn is suggested to be the cause of frequent divorces, teenage
crimes, vandalism, hooliganism and low education attainment in Western
societies, all of which are lower in Asian societies. It could be argued that
Democracy follows essentially a doctrine of moral relativism, where no
particular moral code is privileged by any form of reasonable evidence or
argumentation to be true or more worthy; only what a particular group of

14

people (that defines a particular nation) would agree to value, is to be given

any value. This intrinsic property of the democratic thesis appears to conflict
the very meaning of 'moral values' in a way that still demands serious
scholarship and careful academic consideration.
Administrative criticisms
Democracy is also criticised for frequent elections due to the instability of
coalition governments. Coalitions are frequently formed after the elections in
many countries (for example India) and the basis of alliance is predominantly
to enable a viable majority, not an ideological concurrence.
This opportunist alliance not only has the handicap of having to cater to too
many ideologically opposing factions, but it is usually short lived since any
perceived or actual imbalance in the treatment of coalition partners, or
changes to leadership in the coalition partners themselves, can very easily
result in the coalition partner withdrawing its support from the government.
Democratic institutions work on consensus to decide an issue, which usually
takes longer than a unilateral decision.
Corruption within democratic governments
This is a simple form of appealing to the short term interests of the voters.
This tactic has been known to be heavily used in north and north-east region
of Thailand.
Another form is commonly called Pork barrel where local areas or political
sectors are given special benefits but whose costs are spread among all
taxpayers.
Mere elections are just one aspect of the democratic process. Other tenets of
democracy, like relative equality and freedom, are frequently absent in
ostensibly democratic countries.
Moreover, in many countries, democratic participation is less than 50% at
times, and it can be argued that election of individual(s) instead of ideas
disrupts democracy.

15

Volatility/unsustainability
The new establishment of democratic institutions in countries where the
associated practices have as yet been uncommon or deemed culturally
unacceptable, can result in institutions that are not sustainable in the long
term. One circumstance supporting this outcome may be when it is part of the
common perception among the populace that the institutions were established
as a direct result of foreign pressure.
Sustained regular inspection from democratic countries, however effortfull and
well-meaning, are normally not sufficient in preventing the erosion of
democratic practices. In the cases of several African countries, corruption still
is rife in spite of democratically elected governments, as one of the most
severe examples, Zimbabwe is often perceived to have backfired into outright
militarianism.

16