After a long summer break, I am back, and back with drive :)
Our society is dominated by the ideal of democracy: it was thought in 2017 that out of 167 countries, 96 of them were democracies (Desilver, 2019), making this governmental system the most common in the world.
Despite how widespread this political regime may be; it is nonetheless difficult to define what a democracy as this can take on different meanings. Its epistemological origins are found in Ancient Greece, “democracy” meaning “ruled by the people”; thus, making a democracy a regime that aims to serve its population (Brown, McLean, McMillan, 2018).
We must ask ourselves what it means for a government to achieve this task, as this can be done in many ways: that being said, we must come to understand what are the limitations of this form of government, as it can be argued that democracies today are in crisis (Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, 1975).
For one, we will find how democracies represent the interests of their people, followed by how they focus on collective decision-making, and ending with how they encourage a direct relationship between themselves and their respective populations; all the while analyzing the difficulties in achieving these feats.
To serve a population is to ensure that its interests are prioritized: this is what characterizes a democracy. For a government to be “ruled by the people”, it must set aside its personal agenda to accommodate itself to the will of the people.
This is thought as the desire for a common good that would benefit the entirety of the general public, which can be translated through legal legitimate action on the behalf of the government, such as through law-making (Rousseau, 1761).
This practice aims to solidify a grounded, indirect relationship between the state and its people; the purpose of law being to ensure stability and harmony within a society by adapting this “general will” in legal terms.
We must stress the importance of the word “indirect”, as the population is not directly entitled to establish their interests within a governmental framework. Instead, the people’s interests are represented through elected officials that aim to legally establish their agenda: this is what is referred to as a representative democracy.
This regime measures the population’s political freedom in terms of the rights they possess: whether or not a citizen is entitled to freedom of speech, movement, association, conscience and voting rights determines the democratic legitimacy of a representative democracy (Axford, 2002).
A failure of ensuring these rights signifies a failure of ensuring a democracy; as the population’s best interests would not be upheld.
The advantages and limitations of a representative democracy must be equally weighed. This regime “offers a practical form of democracy” (Heywood, 2013: 92) as it is much easier to convey the task of governance to a small group of experienced politicians rather than to a mass of inexperienced citizens.
It “relieves ordinary citizens of the burden of decision-making” (Heywood, 2013: 92) as this is taken in charge by elected officials. Finally, it encourages the population to familiarize itself to compromise, as the government must uphold its interests all the while establishing stability within the statehood.
However, there are shortcomings to representative democracies, mostly residing in the dangers of corrupted representation: a government may mask its self-serving agenda through the false promotion of democratic activity, meaning elected officials may pose as their population’s representatives when they truly seek to represent no other interests but their own. This phenomenon can take place because “the people exercise minimal…political power” which is “confined to elected…elites” (Axford, 2002: 164).
In addition, the decline in party membership – the participation of the voting population in political parties – has reinforced the lack of political involvement on the behalf of citizens (Tormey, 2016). This leads to further distrust in political officials from the population.
Much of the contention that surrounds these issues involves decision-making, more specifically who is entitled to make such important decisions on a collective level.
If the general public is affected by this process, then why is this “elected elite” given such power over them? Would this not be a form of domination on behalf of the government, thus eliminating all democratic aspects?
Decision-making is key in how we understand democracy as it allows for consensus between the government and the population to be conducted in a legal framework. This must be done on a collective level – meaning multiple parties must be involved – and in a “process of rational and considered deliberation” (Axford, 2002: 165).
Decision-making serves as a vessel of communication, which becomes the foundation for democratic activity within a society: a government featuring this process becomes a deliberative democracy.
It is argued that this is composed of two characteristics: the “participation in collective decision-making by those affected by the decision” and “the inclusion in the decision-making process of deliberation” through the “participants’ committed to the values of rationality and impartiality” (Elster, 1998: 8). In traditional democratic fashion, the people are at the heart of the state.
It is widely thought by political theorists that this regime would be able to solve a perceived crisis of democracy as it could allow for a “central place for reasoned discussion in political life” (Cooke, 2000: 947).
An example of this is UK Citizens Online Democracy (UKCOD) which aims to “promote online discussion and information dissemination” on British politics (Axford, 2002: 165). This democracy’s deliberative quality leads to the normalization of political debate in everyday life. These exchanges enable the population to effectively critique and analyze their surroundings, keeping them aware of their government’s actions.
This is essential in any democracy, as a society blindly led by a governmental entity could be subject to tyranny.
Nonetheless, deliberative democracies have their disadvantages: it is argued that collective decision-making does not necessarily facilitate discussion as much as it facilitates opposition (Blattberg, 2003).
It is often difficult to distinguish negotiation from conversation in decision-making when the stakes are so high for those affected: this can cause antagonistic divide between groups within society. The process of deliberation is nuanced in nature; however, this is poorly translated in a legal framework where the government would automatically have sovereign authority over the population.
These issues touch on the relationship adopted between these two entities: it is through communication that democratic activity can take place. How is this communication established in modern societies? Are there any dangers to direct communication?
If democracies place their populations at the focus of their governance, this indicates that understanding their needs is essential. Communication between the people and the government is what allows for this understanding to take place: a democracy must be in touch with its population, any kind of detachment would result in the latter’s distrust towards the former; destabilizing the relationship between the two. It is for this reason that the population must participate directly in the decision-making process, as it involves them in the political sphere: this is what characterizes a direct democracy.
The more involved the population becomes in politics, the more lines are blurred between the public and the government. Intensified political participation leads to “better-informed and more politically sophisticated citizenry” (Heywood, 2013: 92). The public in turn encapsulates a sense of control over themselves, as they can “express their own views and interests without having to rely on self-serving politicians” (Heywood, 2013: 92), allowing freedom of thought and expression; which are quintessential attributes of any democracy.
However, direct communication between the government and its people is done through quite controversial means: in modern societies, the media becomes the vessel through which these entities communicate.
The media adopts a paradoxical nature: it spreads pertinent information all the while profiting from opposition to entertain its audience. This can lead to the “corruption of the political process” (Axford, 2002: 166), where political leaders utilize the media to “court uninformed public opinion” to their advantage, particularly by playing into the public’s paranoia (as exemplified through issues such as immigration, terrorism, etc…).
In addition, these political figures can avoid accountability from governmental institutions by strengthening their authoritarian position through public admiration. A political leader mythicizes his charismatic persona to accumulate influence- at the expense of democratic integrity.
Political theorists have described this perverted form of direct democracy as a “listening dictatorship” (Donovan, 1998) or an “authoritarian pseudo-democracy” (Poli, 1998).
The foundation of democracy is based on the harmony between the governors and the governed; however, this harmony must be appropriately maintained at the risk of the creation of a demagogy.
With democracy constantly being subject to change, analysis and criticism, we must consider the one founding principle that shapes democracy as a whole: its focus on the population.
This value is what guides all of democracy’s attributes, from the representation of citizenry in government, to the significance of collective decision making, to the relationship adopted between the state and its people.
Despite democracy’s many different models and interpretations, its foundation still serves as the basis for human rights; as a government that upholds the basic liberties of its people is a government that upholds the principles of humanity.
To avoid this “crisis of democracy”, we must find ways to apply its values in a realistic setting; one that is able to strike the balance between satisfying the ambitions of politicians and the needs of the population.