ДЕМОКРАТИЯ: ЗА И ПРОТИВ

Кабдуалиева М.А.

Студентка, Автономная организация образования

«Назарбаев Университет»

ДЕМОКРАТИЯ: ЗА И ПРОТИВ

Аннотация

Главной целью данной статьи является анализ положительных  и отрицательных аспектов демократического строя. Среди основных задач проекта стояли: доказательство преимущества демократии над различными видами авторитарной формы правления, сравнение основных прав и свобод граждан демократий и автократий, а также сопоставление политического благосостояния различных стран с вышеупомянутыми режимами. Данная работа поднимает актуальный вопрос в современной политологии и предоставляет обзор наиболее важных сторон доминирующих на сегодняшний день политических режимов; проект также может найти свое практическое применение в качестве материала для дополнительного изучения в области политических наук.

Ключевые слова: демократия, автократия, диктатура, свобода, право.  

Kabdualiyeva M.A.

Undergraduate student, Autonomous organization of education

 “Nazarbayev University”

DEMOCRACY: FOR AND AGAINST

Abstract

The main goal of this article is to analyze positive and negative aspects of democratic regime. The project had several objectives, namely: showing the advantages of democracy over different forms of autocracy; comparison of basic rights and freedoms of the citizens living in democracies and countries with authoritarianism; and contrast of political and social welfare of different states with two types of regime mentioned above. This paper raises actual issue of political science nowadays and provides the overview of the most important sides of two most widespread political regimes throughout the world.

Keywords: democracy, autocracy, dictatorship, freedom, right

One of the most disputed questions in the modern world is whether or not democracy can be regarded as the best form of government. Some people strongly believe that it is the most appropriate governmental type, since democracy provides the citizens with the power to participate in many political, social, and economic processes. Great Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill once remarked that, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”[1] However, a contradictory opinion does exist. Those, who are against the maintaining of democracy, do believe that this type of regimes is unstable and inefficient, as anyone is trying to adapt his/her viewpoint, and, as a result, people do not finally achieve what they need and want.  But if democracy really has only negative sides, why the countries in different parts of the world still want to democratize their governments? From my perspective, democracy is not a perfect form of government, but, compared to others, it provides the most beneficial conditions for fair and justified rulemaking. In this paper, I will consider both the advantages and disadvantages of democratic regime in order to understand to what extent Churchill’s notion was valid.

To begin with, the key problem why there is no common opinion about “goodness” or “badness” of democracy is that different people may understand democracy in their own way. In the article “What Democracy Is…and Is Not,” Schmitter and Karl, two political scholars, try to identify which notions are to be included into the meaning of democracy, and which are not.[2] Nonetheless, the authors acknowledge that democracy may go out far beyond those limits, which are traditionally established. The assessment of democratic regime significantly depends on what people mean when they talk about democracy, and the analysis provided below demonstrates how can be remarkable the difference between opinions.

The most essential conditions of people’s lives are liberty, independence, and legitimacy and democracy encompasses all of these aspects. One of the most outstanding political scientists to make significant contribution to democratic theory is Robert Dahl. In his book, “On Democracy,”  he reasons why we should support democracy by identifying the following benefits: avoiding tyranny, essential human rights, general freedom of the citizens, self-determination, moral autonomy, protecting essential personal interests, human development, political equality, peace-seeking, and, finally, prosperity[3]. Undoubtedly, all of these factors are essential for humans’ well-being; they demonstrate that the democratic regime is the best form of government for people and the preservation of their rights. Yet, the most fundamental and important benefit of democracy, lying at its core, is the first one – the prevention of people from being ruled by autocrats. But what is a tyranny, and why should we avoid it? By and large, in autocracies all power is concentrated in the hands of one person (or group of them,) and others do not have access to the governing process. Such countries lack the rule of law; the leader has a limitless range of opportunities, including murdering the citizens. Also, tyranny makes a country extremely unstable because people often try to remove the head of the state from his/ her office. Therefore, one of the reasons for why other regimes are not suitable for the states is that they preclude free and legitimate society. Democracy is the only form of government that prevents a tyrant to come into power, while other types of regime do not guarantee it. Hence, preventing the state from a misery of dictatorship, democracy opens a large amount of opportunities for its citizens. In the following paragraphs I will discuss some of these positive consequences of democratic government.

Firstly, under dictatorship people are enforced to support a particular ideology or follow the views held by the leader. In democracies, however, the supremacy of pluralism allows the citizens to express their political views freely; they can join or create a political party, interest group, or other nongovernmental organizations. In the countries with nondemocratic regimes this activity was forbidden and even punished. For example, in the middle of the 20^th century, Soviet citizens had to obey the viewpoints declared by Joseph Stalin. Millions of people were sentenced to imprisonment and exile. The reason for such a severe punishment was the expression of opinion differing from the ideology maintained by the leader. In today’s world, a similar situation exists in North Korea. People are deprived of the freedom of speech or political opposition. The mass media of the country is totally monopolized by the government, and the sources of information from abroad are also banned. It significantly harms people and retards the development of the state, because government acts contrary to its citizens.

Secondly, democracy, in contrast to nondemocratic governments, fosters legitimacy, the acceptance by people of the way the government acts. Democracy allows people to participate in different political processes; therefore, consensus between the governor and governed is easier to achieve. The head of a democratic state not only holds all the power, but many other actors can also influence the rulemaking. One of the most important opportunities given to the citizens is to elect their leader. Furthermore, they can directly take part in the adoption of the laws. In Switzerland, a country with direct democracy, people can express their concerns about the governmental policies on referenda, and influence the adoption or revocation of laws. In other words, people are not restricted by the limits established by the head of the state: they can influence the way that social order in the country is set up or changed.

Thirdly, domestic situation in democracies is relatively stable rather than other governments. The possibility of the revolt, civil war or another internal armed conflict is reduced, since the citizens have a right to represent their dissatisfaction legally, not just by the use of force. One state where dictatorship led to terrific consequences is Libya, a state that had an authoritarian regime. During Muammar Gaddafi’s rule people suffered from different problems such as bad living conditions, poverty, famine, etc. As a result, the civil war began, and Muammar Gaddafi was murdered. Civil war significantly harmed the Libyans, more than 25,000 people died^[4], and now the whole country suffers from the breakdown of the state as political entity. The economic costs of the conflict are also pretty high: Libya lost just over 40 billion dollars[5]. Now Libya tries to democratize the state: in 2012, the elections of the parliament were organized.

Finally, the support for democratic regime encourages not only internal stability, but also fosters peaceful relations among countries. The concept of democratic peace, for example, prevents the states from engagement in armed conflicts among each other, as it contradicts the concepts of democracy and violates humans’ rights. In dictatorships, in contrast, the leaders tend to act more aggressive towards other governments; they strive to conquer foreign lands and foment a conflict in order to derive benefit for themselves. Iraq, for example, functioned as a complete autocracy under the rule of Saddam Hussein. He used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and waged a ruinous war against Iran. The consequences were disastrous: millions of people died on each side[6].

In short, it becomes clear that because democratic states prevent tyranny, they are inclined to both internal and external stability. Avoiding dictatorship, democracies preserve people’s interests and rights. They provide people with political freedom, represent the interests of the citizens, help to solve their problems and adjust the policies in accordance with their needs. The existence of pluralism and opposition make the society more competitive and flexible. Hence, we can see that the prevention of tyranny is connected to other positive sides of democracy mentioned by Dahl, such as protection essential personal interests, fostering human development, political equality, and peace-seeking. Democratic type of government promotes the progress and allows the state to keep pace with the demands of the citizens.

Nonetheless, democracy is often criticized for its majoritarian trends. The opponents of democratic regime claim that even though this form prevents the state from the emergence of one strong leader, it has a little to do with the dominance of majority. According to political theorist and social scientist Friedrich Hayek, “Under the rule of homogenous and doctrinaire majority, democracy could be no less tyrannical than the worst of dictatorships.” The diversity of opinions creates the foundation for the conflict among people, so government prefers to rely on the claims and concerns proposed by the largest part of the society. The term that describes this predomination of the largest part is “a dictatorship of the majority”, which was firstly used by Alexis de Tocqueville in his “Democracy in America” book. Tocqueville himself argued that democracy is just a soft form of dictatorship, which gradually destroys freedom and strengthens the role of the state[7].  The main problem with the dictatorship of the majority is that it reinforces social divisions. Nathan Glazer, in his article “Democracy and Deep Divides,” mentions that social segregation can be based on religious, racial, ethnic, or linguistic differences. He also emphasizes that even such powerful democracies as the USA, Canada, and India have strongly marked borders between people of different races, nations, or religious beliefs[8]. The majority is disrespectful toward the needs and desires of the rest of the society, and minority groups do not have much influence in order to change the situation. This inequality enriches ones in the expense of others, increasing the gap between the elite and common people.

Another challenge of the democracy and its majority rule is the quality of government and accepted policies. Frequently, humans can be uninformed on some questions, which are under discussion. This unawareness makes accepted by the majority and the administration decisions ineffective because they do not really represent people’s concerns about the problem. Precisely, for this reason, the opportunity of policy choices given to the population may noticeably harm the state. Thus, most of the decisions should be taken without permission of the citizens because government consists of the experts, who better know which policies may benefit the country and its people. Otherwise, the desire will surpass the need.  As Anatoly Vasserman, Ukrainian journalist and political adviser, said, “Just imagine that we need to make a menu for the kids in the kindergarten. If they will be given an opportunity to decide what to eat, the menu will consist only of chocolate and candies, while in order to be healthy they need vegetables and fruits. Therefore, the most important thing is not what people want, but in what dimension they must develop, and which things are really necessary for them.”[9] As the result of the unawareness, the members of the majority just blindly follow what others are saying regardless their real preferences. In other words, people start to lose their individuality. It is safer and easier for them to rely on the common will and opinion; the society is converted into homogenous mass, while they should be involved in collective action problem.

Therefore, democracy should not be regarded as the most successful and useful type of government. Democracy puts unattainable goals to please everyone, but it is impossible to satisfy the needs of the society, whose members support different ideologies and have various understandings of how democracy should work. These failed attempts often result in free-riding, political indifference, pursuing only relative gains, instability, and discrimination of some, as opposed to the dominance of others. Democratic regimes do not reduce the tensions among people and establish harmony; on the contrary, they promote enmity and disunity. These factors make democratic governments extremely unstable and demonstrate democracy as unreliable source of power.

As I have illustrated before, democracy has some weaknesses that may harm certain groups of the society. These disadvantages lead to the absence of equality, tolerance, pluralism, polyarchy, etc. However, democracy, among other governmental types, is the most appropriate form, which addresses how to solve aforementioned problems in a peaceful way. Compared with nondemocratic alternatives, democratic governments possess much more possibilities to satisfy the needs of the population. In democracies, where the rights of people are immensely important, it is easier to eradicate social divisions and establish harmony between people from different races or ethnic groups. The argument about the dictatorship of the majority also cannot be regarded as valid. The creation of a state, where none of the citizens will be infringed by the society and harmed, is impossible to reach. If the government accepted the claims of each person, the state would be plunged in the chaos. The best solution is to listen to the voice of the majority, and provide the citizenry with more or less satisfactory conditions. Moreover, addressing the problems by democratic states involves social integration, which makes taken policies more effective. Dr. Almut Schilling-Vacaflor in her article about democracy in Bolivia argues that participation and representation of civil society will help diverse cultures and parts of the society to cooperate in order to solve their problems.[10] In addition, as the recent trends show, the popularity of democracy has risen sharply: according to Democracy Index, in 2011, more than 35 states are at the stage of transition from authoritarianism, they have a hybrid regime; just over 50 are considered to be incomplete democracies, and 25 countries are full democracies[11]. The countries, which decided to change the form of government, are the former military dictatorship, theocracies or autocracies. This tendency evidences that the realization of flaws of nondemocratic regimes is increasing; the governments have begun to understand that democracy is the best option for them to solve their problems.

In conclusion, Winston Churchill’s argument may be considered as valid, and rightly so. No doubt, democracy is not an ideal regime type, and we can see it on the examples of many democratic states, where people are suffering from different calamities. Democracy cannot guarantee its citizens full protection from injustice, discrimination, or economic austerities. Nonetheless, we should clearly understand that these guaranties are beyond the power of all forms governments, not only democracy. People blame democratic regime for not accomplishing its purposes, but they forget that the same tasks should be also addressed to other regimes. Democracy excels other regimes in solving the problems just mentioned before, and in that sense it is more acceptable for the governments. As Robert Dahl said, “In spite of these flaws, however, we must never lose sight of the benefits that make democracy more desirable than any feasible alternative to it. With all these advantages, democracy is, for most of us, a far better gamble than any alternative to it.”[12] Therefore, when people try to decide which regimes type is the most appropriate for the government, they should not forget Churchill’s words that “democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried.”