Meaning of Democracy
The term democracy comes from the Greek word for “rule of the
people.” The Greek’s idea of democracy was based on the full participation of
all people in every aspect of government. The Greek system of democratic government
is the model of “pure” or consensus” democracy, though in the case of Greek
pure democracy did not last long. However, the idea of government by the people
survived the decline of the Greek city-state to become one of the basic ideals
of political thought.
There are two broad categories of scholars on the concept of
democracy: the process and principle democrats. Process scholars see democracy
as a way of making decisions, but principle democrats’ argue that democracy has
a very important theoretical base (Baradat, 2000).
The principle democrats’ states that, although the procedure
of democracy is important, according to them it is secondary to the basic
intents and objectives of democracy as expressed in democratic theory. For this
reason, we will focus in this unit on the principle or theory of democracy.
The principle democrats contend that the basic principle of
modern liberal democracy include that the individual is of major importance in
the society, that each individual is basically equal to all other individuals,
and that each has certain inalienable rights. Central to democracy is also the
assumption of the freedom of choice that the individual has from form fear or
coercion and any other disabilities. Central to democracy is liberty to make
choice and equality of choice. Democracy, according to John Dewey is much more
than a form of government or a set of legal arrangement, but should be seen as
a way of life that requires faith in the capacity of human beings for
intelligent judgment and action, if proper conditions are provided. He argues
further that democracy requires faith in the possibility of resolving disputes
through un- coerced deliberations. Democracy, according to Dewey, should not be
viewed as “something institutional and external” but should been seen as “a way
of personal life.”
Democracy not only requires institutional guarantees of
rights but also faith in the possibility of resolving disputes through
un-coerced deliberation.
In other words, un-hindered communication should be put in
place in a democratic setting in which there is a “cooperative undertaking”,
instead of having one group suppress the other through either subtle or overt
violence or through intimidation. Democracy does not impose authority from
above but instead relies on the dialogue as the source of authority and the
means of choosing among competing alternatives. A democratic system flourishes
in a setting where there is unlimited participation of all citizens in a free
and rational public debate.
For Emile Durkheim, the basic hallmark of democracy is the
citizens’ capacity to participate in the state’s judgment. To him, the state’s
legitimacy springs from its collective conscience. In other words, the citizens
should be able to contribute to the natural reasoning and deliberations of the
society.
In Durkheim’s view, if we want to have a viable democracy
then we must have a vibrant public sphere where issues of common concern could
be debated in a rational manner. Similarly, intolerance, abuse, calling of
names because of differences of opinion about religion or politics including
differences of race, colour or wealth are treason to the democratic way of
life.
Despite this seeming agreement by most scholars on its
principle, democracy, especially its process, which we shall discuss in the
next unit, is, essentially, a largely contested concept.
Robert Dahl (1984) sees it as a concept that defies
definition in the sense that the way one defines it would betray one’s beliefs,
personal outlook, political experience and ideological preference. There are
differences for example between the United States’ and the Soviet Union’s
conception of democracy.
A major difference between USA and the former Soviet Union is
that US emphasizes political freedom as basic to democracy while USSR focuses
on economic rights and its leaders are even prepared to suppress or deny
individual rights for the sake of the survival of the system.
On the other hand, democracy in the U.S.A. does not place high
premium on economic needs, in spite of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s
New Deal program. In retrospect, one can argue that that one of the reasons why
the Soviet Union collapsed is that the system could no longer fulfill the basic
economic needs of its people despite the lid the system placed on human
(political) rights. This is why Baradat (2000) argued that the Soviet Union and
the United States differed as to which procedures best defines democracy”.
The Process of Democracy
The popular definition of democracy offered by Abraham
Lincoln gives the impression that all the citizens have the opportunities of
participating in government. However, this is no longer possible in the modern
world because of the size of sovereign states today. Since the world has
advanced beyond the Greek city-states participatory democracy is no longer
practicable, hence the necessity for indirect or representative democracy.
Through this process, given that all necessary conditions are in place, it is
quite possible to achieve the ideals of democracy. Political power comes from
the people and that a government is only legally constituted and run when the
people gives their consent. The democratic process is therefore the
institutional arrangements for arriving at political decisions in which
individual acquires and retain the power to rule by means of a competitive
struggle for the people’s vote.
The success of any democratic political system is largely,
determined by the willingness on the part of the political actors to comply
with the rules of the game. A democratic political system will therefore be
stable if the process of leadership recruitment is legitimate and majority of
the citizens accept the electoral system as fair and just. Presently, the
United States and most European countries have succeeded in meeting most
conditions for the sustenance of democracy, while most third world countries
are still struggling to lay the foundation or rudiments, in order to begin the
democratic journey. Democracy goes beyond mere putting in place political
structures and institutions, but also involves meaningful participation of the
peoples in the affairs of the state. The key words therefore are participation,
transparency and accountability.
As aptly argued by Samuel P. Huntington (Huntington, 1991),
democracy has advanced in waves since the early nineteenth Century, with each
wave giving way to partial reversals followed by new gains. The current wave, which
is the third one, according to him, commenced in the mid-seventies.
Thus, contemporary views on democracy see it as the exercise
of state power with the consent of the people either directly or indirectly
through their elected representatives. Within democratic governance there is
provision for state institutions to express the will of the state and
ultimately for the supremacy of that expression on all basic questions of
socioeconomic direction and policy. Under democratic governance, factors such as
economic equality, fraternal feeling and political liberty within a defined
territory are indispensable prerequisites.
The institutional expression within democratic governance in
contemporary times are equal rights for all normal adults to vote and to stand
as candidates for election; periodic elections; equal eligibility for executive
and judicial offices (provided the essential qualifications for the performance
of the assigned duties are satisfied) and freedom of speech, publication and
association Appadoria (2004). These rights in themselves provide opportunities
for the entire citizenry to participate in choosing their rulers and in
deciding the general lines of their policy via their political manifestos
presented before elections.
However, a number of factors, most significant of which are
the social environment, economic resource of the citizens and their natural
endowment decide the extent to which these essential democratic sine qua non rights can be met.
Nonetheless, in most democratic states in spite of their imperfections, even the poor are given minimal equality of voting during elections since votes are counted, not weighed, regardless of the social or economic status of the voters. Among such rights that can promote the cause of democracy are freedoms of speech, press and association.
These rights are integral to democratic governance because they make possible free discussion and the continuous participation of the citizenry in government, overtime and not only during the time of general elections. Free discussion is necessary because democratic governance is based on the belief in the value of individual personality. This implies the obligation to respect the other man, to listen to his views and to take into account his point of argument. In addition, the process of law making should allow full scope for the consideration of different and opposing viewpoints.
Those who are inevitably affected by a law must be content that their case has been properly heard in a properly constituted court of law in the land (Egbewole, 2008). This makes the ‘Rule of Law’ a cardinal element of democracy (Dicey 1963). Equality before the law, impartiality in the dispensation of justice and periodic elections are also important in promoting hitch-free democratic process. There is also the possibility of an alternative government in democratic governance. This is in sharp contrast to a situation where power is conferred permanently, or where people do not feel free or safe to discuss or vote according to the dictates of their conscience. Where this is the case then democracy cannot be said to exist even if the people continue to enjoy the other political rights enumerated above. Finally, democratic governance requires proper organization and dynamic leadership. Political parties carry out organization within democratic governance. Despite their limitations or weaknesses, political parties are indispensable to the successful operation of a democratic society (Bello-imam, 2002). Little wonder political parties are regarded as the fulcrum of democracy.
Lastly, we must point out that it is not possible to isolate
the principle of democracy from its process because one needs to reconcile the
two in such a way that a state should use the right method or process to
achieve the objectives of democracy.
Types of Democracy
Below listed are types of Democracy:
1. Direct Democracy
2. Indirect or Representative Democracy
3.
Participatory Democracy
4. Liberal Democracy
5. parliamentary Democracy
6. pluralist Democracy
1. Direct Democracy
In a direct democracy, such as ancient Athens, all citizens (only adult males who had completed their military training; women, slaves and plebs were not citizens) are invited to participate in all political decisions. This form of democracy is no longer practiced. In this form of democracy citizens are continuously involved in the exercise of power and decision is by majority rule. Direct democracy, sometimes called "pure democracy," is a form of democracy in which all laws and policies imposed by governments are determined by the people themselves, rather than by representatives who are elected by the people. In a true direct democracy, all laws, bills, and even court decisions are voted on by all citizens.
2. Indirect
or Representatives Democracy
It a representative democracy, representatives
are elected by the people and entrusted to carry out the business of governance.
Australia is a representative democracy.
If your country holds elections, it’s almost certainly a representative
democracy. That means it’s a system of government in which citizens elect
representatives who propose and vote on legislation or policy initiatives on
their behalf. It’s a form of indirect democracy, as opposed to a direct
democracy, in which people vote directly on policy initiatives. Representative
democracy gives power to representatives who are elected by citizens. As you
may know, political parties have become an important element of representative
democracy. They give us a broad-stroke sense of what a candidate stands for
based on which party he or she belongs to. Although we still vote on people
when we head to the polls, in reality we are really voting for which political
party – and which platform of policy ideas – we want to represent us.
3. Participatory Democracy
In
a participatory democracy, the people vote directly on policy while their
elected representatives are responsible for implementing those policies.
Participatory democracies rely on the citizens in setting the direction of the
state and the operation of its political systems. While the two forms of
government share similar ideals, participatory democracies tend to encourage a
higher, more direct form of citizen participation than traditional
representative democracies.
While
there are no countries specifically classified as participatory democracies,
most representative democracies employ citizen participation as a tool for
social and political reform. In the United States, for example, so-called
“grassroots” citizen participation causes such as the civil rights movement of
the 1960s have led elected officials to enact laws implementing sweeping
social, legal, and political policy changes.
4. Liberal Democracy
Liberal
democracy is loosely defined as a form of representative democracy that emphasizes
the principles of classical liberalism—an ideology advocating the protection of
individual civil liberties and e economic freedom by limiting the power of
the government. Liberal democracies employ a constitution, either statutorily
codified, as in the United States or unmodified, as in the United Kingdom, to
define the powers of the government, provide for a separation of those powers,
and enshrine the social contracts. Liberal
democracies may take the form of a constitutional republic, like the United
States, or a constitutional monarchy, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and
Australia.
5. Parliamentary Democracy
In a parliamentary democracy, the people
directly elect representatives to a legislative parliament. Similar to the U.S.
congress, the parliament directly represents the people in making necessary
laws and policy decisions for the country.In parliamentary democracies such as
the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan, the head of government is a prime
minister, who is first elected to parliament by the people, then elected prime
minister by a vote of the parliament. However, the prime minister remains a
member of the parliament and thus plays an active role in the legislative
process of creating and passing laws. Parliamentary democracies are typically a
feature of a constitutional monarch, a system of government in which the head
of state is a queen or king whose power is limited by a constitution.
6. Pluralist Democracy
In a pluralist democracy, no single group dominates politics. Instead, organized groups within the people compete to influence public policy. In political science, the term pluralism expresses the ideology that influence should be spread among different interest groups, rather than held by a single elite group as in an aristocracy. Compared to participatory democracies, in which individuals take part in influencing political decisions, in a pluralist democracy, individuals work through groups formed around common causes hoping to win the support of elected leaders. In this context, the pluralist democracy assumes that the government and the society as a whole benefit from a diversity of viewpoints. Examples of pluralist democracy can be seen in the impact special interest groups, such as the national organization for women, have had on American politics.
Brief History of Democracy
Archeological
evidence suggests that disorganized practices at least resembling democracy
existed in some parts of the world during prehistoric times, However, the
concept of democracy as a form of populist civic engagement emerged during the 5th century BCE in the form of the
political system used in some of the city- state of ancient Greece, most
notably Athens. At that time, and for the next several centuries, tribes or
city-states remained small enough that if democracy was practiced at all, it
took the form of direct democracy. As city-states grew into larger, more
heavily populated sovereign nation-states or countries, direct democracy became
unwieldy and slowly gave way to representative democracy. This massive change
necessitated an entirely new set of political institution such as
legislatures, parliaments, and political parties all designed according to the
size and cultural character of the city or country to be governed.
Until the 17th century, most legislatures
consisted only of the entire body of citizens, as in Greece, or representatives
selected from among a tiny oligarchy or an elite hereditary aristocracy. This
began to change during the English civil wars from 1642 to 1651 when
members of the radical puritan reformation movement demanded expanded
representation in Parliament and the universal right to vote for all male
citizens. By the middle 1700s, as the power of the British Parliament grew, the
first political parties the Whigs and Tories emerged. It soon became obvious
that laws could not be passed or taxes levied without the support of the Whig
or Tory party representatives in Parliament.
While
the developments in the British Parliament showed the feasibility of a
representative form of government, the first truly representative democracies
emerged during the 1780s in the British colonies of North America and took
its modern form with the formal adoption of the Constitution of the United
States of America on March 4, 1789.
Features of Democracy
1. Existence
of the Constitution
2. Popular
participation in politics
3. Legitimacy
4. Periodic
election
5. Separation
of power
6. Checks
and balances
7. Existence
of political parties
8. Equality
before the law
9. Fundamental
human rights
In
short, those are the features of a democratic state. Nonetheless, as
we continue, each of these features above will be comprehensively discussed.
1. Existence
of the Constitution:
In every democratic nation, there is usually the existence of a constitution
which is either written or written. A constitution can simply be defined as the
fundamental laws or rules which guides a state or society. It establishes the
institutions of the government such as the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary and defines their powers. The constitution also contains the rights
and duties of the citizens and the government. It is imperative to note
that there are two types of institutions namely: Formal and informal
institutions. Formal instructions are those which discharge formal functions
such as the three arms of the government. On the other hand, informal
institutions are those which discharge informal responsibilities such as the
political parties and the press. In a democratic society, the constitution
usually states how these institutions functions.
2. Popular participation in politics: One the most important
features of democracy is popular participation in politics. From the definition
of democracy explained above, it is clear that any system which does not
encourage people to participate in the political decision making of the
government is not democratic. Consequently, popular participation is not just a
feature of democracy; it is an essential part of the system. People have to
participate in politics either directly or through a representative which is
legitimately recognized by them. Take for instance, in Nigeria (a
federal system), people at the local level, who cannot actively
participate in politics at the central level, are allowed to elect senators who
represent their opinions at the central level. No doubt, popular
participation in politics is one of the features of democracy that cannot be
jettisoned.
3. Legitimacy: Legitimacy is the recognition
of the people of a state, the right of their leaders to govern. This
definition of Legitimacy is actually very short and understandable. Oxford
dictionary defines democracy as when there is conformity to the law or to
rules. The definition of Legitimacy in political science which Wikipedia
says is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law
or a regime. In a democratic state, the people are allowed to select
who to govern them. This is what is known as Legitimacy. Here, the people
will unanimously agree on who will administer their political
affairs. This is usually done by voting and it is recognized by the law
which the people have consented to. Apparently, this is why Abraham Lincoln
said that democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the
people. This postulates that in a democratic state the people are very key.
4. Periodic
election: Since
the people are the supreme in a democratic state, there is usually a fixed
tenure for conducting elections. This is to make sure that the political
powers of the state are not concentrated in a single hand. In the United
States of America for example, the president of the United States is
elected indirectly to a four-year term, with a term limit of two
terms. In Nigeria, the president is to stay for four years in office after
which another election will be conducted. It is pertinent to note that
periodic elections is a very essential feature of democracy because, where
there is one particular leader administering the affairs of a state for eternity,
that state cannot be said to be a democratic state. The people must be allowed
to choose and change their leaders because they are supreme.
5. Separation of power: Separation of power is a political
concept by Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de
Montesquieu, an 18th century French social and political philosopher. It
means that the political powers of a state should not be concentrated in one
single hand. It should rather be separated and sheared to avoid dictatorship.
Here, the political powers of the state are shared between the arms of
government (Executive, Legislature and Judiciary). The Legislature makes
the law of the state. The executive implements the law and the judiciary
interprets the law. These powers are separated such that, there will be no
interference in their activities. Their arms of government are only allowed to
check the activities of each other to ensure that they all conform to the law
of the state which the people agree with.
6. Checks and balances: The theory check and balances is an
extension of the theory of separation of powers. It was propounded by
Montesquieu in his book titled “the spirit of law”. According to
research, Montesquieu’s theory of checks and balances is a principle
of government under which separate branches are empowered to prevent actions by
other branches and are induced to share power. In that same light, checks
and balances in a democratic state, ensures that the different arms of
Government checks the actives of each other. Take for instance, if the
legislature makes a law that it is not supposed, or prohibited from making, the
judiciary can declare such law to be null and void. It should be noted that for
the principle of Checks and balances to be effective, there is need to give each
arm autonomy to act on their own but not outside what is provided in the
law. Financial autonomy is also very important to ensure the effectiveness
of checks and balances in a democratic government. No doubt, it is a very
important feature of democracy.
7. Existence of political
parties: A
political party is a union of likeminded people who come together to take over
power. In a democratic state, there should be political parties. Not just one
political party but two or more. This is to ensure that the masses have
different choices to choose from. A one party state cannot be said to be a
democratic state because there is just one political party in the state. So the
person does not really have any option. Democracy postulates that the
people are Supreme and as such, they have the power to decide who will
administer their political affairs. Conversely, a state where there is no
political party or just one political party or where the people are not allowed
to select anybody they want as leader, is not a democratic state.
8. Equality before the law: In a true democratic state, there is
equity before the law. This form of government does no encourage the idea that
some class of citizens should or should not be punished for their actions. Even
the legitimate leaders in a democratic state are forced to face the law during
or after their service of the nation. Equality is a key feature of
democracy because it postulates that citizens have the same rights to vote and
to be voted for. This means that all votes castes in a democratic
state during election is valid, notwithstanding wealth or position of the
person who castes the vote. This is exactly what is called
equality.
9. Fundamental human rights: Fundamental human rights are also
very important features of a democratic state. They are those inalienable and
immutable rights that are given to a member of a state as soon as he/she is
born.These rights help to protect the citizens of that state
from molestation by dictators. This is why it is important that the
Fundamental human rights of people in a democratic state be entrenched in the
constitution of every state. There are other fundamental human rights that
also help to ensure effective practice of democracy. The freedom of the press
is one of them. Evidently, press freedom is one of the essential pillars of a
democratic state. It is also one of the main features of democracy.
Advantage of Democracy
1. Democracy
helps to avoid dictatorship in government: This is apparently why the
principle of separation of powers is one of the features of democracy. Thus,
the political powers of a democratic state cannot lie in the hands of one man.
2. Democracy
requires the consent of the people: It is the government of the
people, by the people and for the people. This means that the people in every
democratic state are the Supreme. They decide the policy to implement and the
policy not to implement.
3.
Democracy encourages justice since there is equality before the law: Thus, in a true democracy,
citizens must face the consequences of their actions in law regardless of their
wealth or political office.
4.
In a democratic state everyone is carried along in the activities of the state: The majorities have their way
and the minorities have their say. This means that no group in a true democracy
is neglected. It is a government for everyone including the minorities.
5.
Democracy encourages faster economic growth: From the structure of a democratic government, it is
evident that this form of government largely encourages growth and development
in the economics of the state.
Disadvantage of Democracy
1. Corruption: it is argued that there is always a high rate of
corruption in most democratic state. This is apparently as a result of the
hunger by greedy leaders to satisfy their personal or selfish interests in
government.
2. Cost of the system: It is also very expensive to run a
democratic government. Check the amount of money that will be spent on
conducting elections in the state periodically. Also, democracy incorporates
other political principles which are also very expensive to run. This is
considered as one of the disadvantages of running a democratic state.
3.
Democracy is probably impossible where the masses are not enlightened enough to
know that they have the right to vote and to be voted for. In other words,
democracy may not be feasible in a state with many people who are not
politically enlightened.
4.
Lastly, it is argued by many scholars that there cannot be a true democracy in
a state. These scholar postulates that democracy is a combination of many
theories which even though they are compatible, cannot be truly practiced in
any state. There must be definitely be a lacuna in the government and this is
true to some extent.
Criticisms and Limitations of Democracy
Democracy as a philosophical and political process has been
subjected to a number criticisms. Joseph Schumpeter for example argued that
liberty and equality are not part of democracy and that in all democratic
systems; there are necessarily limitations with respect to the qualifications
and circumstances of voters.
The franchise is often qualified and the qualifications
exclude significant section of the population from the voting process. As for
equality, the scholar argued that the relationship between the voter and the
candidate is that people who are slightly affluent in the society are more able
to make claims or enjoy democratic dividends. Besides, disparities in
educational, economic or other social conditions limit the real opportunities
for the voters to exercise their franchise in spite of apparent equality.
Another criticism of democracy derives from elite theories
best associated with Mosca and Pareto. According to these theorists, in most
societies, past and present, there is the distinction between the ruler and the
ruled. Indeed, the Platonic idea of philosopher king is considered a tacit
legitimization of elitist rule. The processes and conditions of governance also
have their own internal dynamics and logic, which gradually create a distinction
in outlook and opportunities between those who govern and those who are
governed. Both Michel Aaron J. J. Rousseau had argued that democracy
necessarily involves representation in which some interest may not receive
adequate attention of the elected representatives.
Harold Laski (1982) shares this sentiment when he advised
that an elected representative is “not entitled to get elected as a free trader
and to vote (in Parliament) for a protective tariff”.
By virtue of their positions, the representatives possess
greater political power than the average citizens do. This is because they meet
and operate on a regular basis and are better informed about the technicalities
of the law and of socio-political relations than the larger society they
represent. Although the majority has the power of ejection and rejection, the
power is exercised irregularly, i.e. at long intervals during elections.
Consequently, Michel Aaron argued that government by the
people is an illusion since the great majority of people are uneducated or
uninformed and therefore cannot participate effectively, or at all, in the
process of government.
Democracy is also attacked as slow and inefficient. The
mechanism for decision-making is long and tortuous, unable to make speedy
decision in an emergency. While democracy might have been possible in the past,
technology has complicated society to such an extent that popular government is
no longer possible.
In developing societies, according to Lucien Pye, democracy
has also been criticized for being inefficient: “To a disturbing degree the
strange idea has been spread within many transitional societies that democracy
is linked with inefficiency, muddled actions and corrupt practices while
authoritarian ways are identified with clear thinking, purposeful action and
firm dedication.” This essentially constituted the rationale put forward by
African leaders in the first decade of independence for their preference, for
one party democracy, which in reality was a euphemism for dictatorship.
Finally, democracy is also fraught with the problem of
illogicality because it tends to promote mediocrity at the expense of merit. In
political contests, winners are not always the best candidate in terms of
intellect, education or competency. Rather, the criteria for determining
electoral victory are popularity, financial wherewithal and other factors.
Nevertheless, democracy is still the most popular and
rational form of government. According to Obafemi Awolowo (1981), “There is
indeed no substitute to democracy as a form of government. It is most certainly
the best form of government, which mankind in its long, painful and heroic
search, has evolved.” Democracy is so popular that most countries, even those
that are clearly undemocratic like the People’s Democratic Republic in Korea,
or China, or the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) prefer to preface
their names or pretend to practice democracy.
However, in reality, these are states which operate
authoritarian form of government, and are/or one party based, a factor which
explains the potential for authoritarianism in such states.
In the Western liberal tradition of Europe and North
America, and those areas of the world that emulate them, the tendency is
towards multi-party democracy. The preference for the multi-party system is
because it allows for competition between parties, sometimes of different
ideological persuasions, with an inherent likelihood of transfer of power from
one party to another, in accordance with the wishes of the electoral majority,
if the ruling party is defeated.
For the less developed countries, a lot still need to be
done to institute the practice of democracy. As the Jacobins of France once
said, “The transition of an oppressed people to democracy is like the effort by
which nature arose from nothingness to existence”
0 Comments