Category: Democracy

In 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed by six countries including Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, and West Germany, leading to the creation of the European Economic Community and the establishment of a customs union. Those six countries were the founding members of the European Union. Afterward, more treaties and agreements were signed, and eventually, the number of member states rose to 28 till the time when this paper was written, the United Kingdom had not officially left the European Union yet. But Brexit is currently going on with a lot of negotiations and great uncertainties for the Brexit deal. Three Prime Ministers had been working on this troublesome issue without any outcomes. The disagreement among the Parliament and different parties has been so intense that people started to wonder whether Brexit could be a positive game changer for people’s benefits in Britain or if it would only bring damage to the state’s economy and national democracy. This paper will argue that the referendum was only a simulacrum of democracy and did nothing to solve problems if the United Kingdom stayed in the European Union, undemocratic supranational institutions, which further undermined the national sovereignty hazard.

The European Union is an undemocratic organization that forces diktats on European countries, which creates definite losses for countries with better economic conditions like the United Kingdom. Leading Leave campaigners, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Gisela Stuart described the EU as “a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has no proper democratic oversight”.

Within the European Union, two institutions work together for the legislature: the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. The Council of European Union, also called a Council of Ministers, consists of 28 seats, one from each member state. According to Art 16(2) TEU: “The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.” They have the legislative power and policy-making power across the Union. The European Parliament was directly elected every five years by European citizens since 1979. Each member state elects several MPs roughly proportional to the national population. The European Parliament shares law-making power with the Council of Ministers; it votes on the confidence of the European Commission and questions and investigates the Commission. The European Commission, sometimes called “the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels”, has a monopoly of the power of legislative initiative, which could be seen as the Executive of the EU.

The European Union does recognize the issue of “democratic deficit” in its glossary of EU terms. It defines it as follows:

A term used by people who argue that the EU institutions and their decision-making procedures suffer from a lack of democracy and seem inaccessible to the ordinary citizen due to their complexity. The real EU democratic deficit seems to be the absence of European politics. EU voters do not feel that they have an effective way to reject a “government”, they do not like, and to change, in some ways, the course of politics and policy (European Union,2017)

It is reasonable to say that it is hard to involve democracy in the decision process in an effective way. The low voter turnout for the European Parliament elections demonstrates the high dissatisfaction level in the European Union.

Under QMV, a law passes if it is backed by 16 out of 28 countries that make up at least 65% of the EU population. The UK has 13% of the EU population, so gets a 13% vote share.

Based on research by the London School of Economics, the United Kingdom was on the winning side 87% of the time between 2009-15. Thus, the British government does have to accept some EU decisions it didn’t vote for. One of the most high-profile losses in recent years, was when the chancellor, George Osborne, was outvoted on an EU law to restrict bankers’ bonuses. In this case, more than three-quarters of the British public, including 68% of Conservative voters, supported the EU proposal.

During the referendum, one of the greatest voices was that the integration of the EU led to parliamentary sovereignty. According to Lord Denning, a famous English Judge, our sovereignty has been taken away by the European Court of Justice… Our courts must no longer enforce our national laws. They must enforce Community law… No longer is European law an incoming tide flowing up the estuaries of England. It is now like a tidal wave bringing down our sea walls and flowing inland over our fields and houses—to the dismay of all. Based on the Parliament’s website the United Kingdom, parliamentary sovereignty makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

This may lead to the final Brexit going on. However, through Brexit, the so-called victory of democracy by many right-wing and EU-sceptic media platforms and politicians could not be reached and the democratic deficit could further exacerbate the current UK system.

The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union by 51.9% to 48.1%. The results of both sides were quite close, with around one million vote difference. This may be considered the idea of the majority, but it could also be seen as the rejection of wills of almost half of the population with Wales and North Ireland choosing to remain in the EU. During another referendum in 1975, 67% voted to stay in European Communities. This time, the narrowness of the simple majority decided the outcome. Under the circumstance of a constitutional referendum, two-thirds of the vote would be needed. As Brexit is comparable to a constitutional amendment, a simple majority should not be effective.

The referendum did not help revive democracy among all people. The turnout was 72.2%, which did not express all population. The rate should be higher than 75% to make the referendum effective. If the turnout rate is low and Brexit wins a weak majority to support the outcome of the referendum, then this means that a small percentage of British voters can determine the fate of the entire country. For the usual prime minister elections, this is acceptable. If people are dissatisfied with the prime minister, they can be elected four years later, but Brexit is completely different from the prime minister. For a British citizen, participating in the referendum on Brexit might be the most important vote in his/her life. In this sense, stricter requirements would be needed for the referendum.

One of the main criticisms of referendums is that they can be the subject of widely distorting campaign expenditure, with voters subjected to heavily disproportionate advertising from one side of the campaign. Another issue is the provision of information. Here of course there are allegations of lies or at least exaggerations by the main campaigns.

From a bigger picture, the national democracy could not be reached simply by leaving the EU. Democracy means more than giving people the power to vote in elections and referendums. What matters more is to get them into the actual decision-making process and their opinions matter during political debates and negotiations. They can always count on their leaders rather than be used as tools for vote procedures. From a regional and national perspective, people’s voices should be heard and respected.

The UK democratic system claims to serve the people and should solve the problem for the people. However, due to the disputes between the party and the House caused by ‘Brexit’, the British government was unable to advance other domestic agendas, causing the economy to be on the verge of recession, business confidence to fall, and people to complain.

Representative democracy is essentially an elite democracy, but this kind of elite democracy is getting further away from the core of democracy, the people, and it is increasingly unable to solve the practical problems the society is facing right now, leading to bigger disappointment with elite politics. It represents the interests of the bourgeoisie. The political parties in the system represent different factions of the ruling class. They seek to control public opinion and provide the ‘illusion’ of democracy.

The reason why so many people asked for a second referendum soon after the outcome is because of the internal crux of modern democracy. Modern democracy originated in ancient Greek city-states by Athens from the 5th century BC to the 4th century BC; the city had about 40,000 citizens with voting rights at its peak. Democracy took root in ancient Greek city-states, mainly because there of a small number of people and the high similarity of the cultures in their communities.

According to Aristotle in Aristotle’s Politics:

Since we see that every city-state is a sort of community and that every community is established for the sake of some good (for everyone does everything for the sake of what they believe to be good), it is clear that every community aims at some good, and the community which has the most authority of all and includes all the others aims highest, that is, at the good with the most authority. This is what is called the city-state or political community.

Compared with Athenian democracy, the carrying unit of representative democracy nowadays is not a community but a complex society. Their major difference is the participatory parties. Today, the large-scale practice of democracy at the level of sovereign states has completely separated from the original soil at the time of its birth.

In the contemporary world, except for a few examples of Singapore, “city-states” do not exist: “city-states” are replaced by “city” and “state.” Today, “country” and “city” are not homogenous communities that are connected by “internality”, but completely heterogeneous strangers. The classical ‘city-state’ can only be compared to small ‘villages’ or small ‘streets/communities’ today. In democracies nowadays, citizens are almost always composed of hundreds of millions of individuals who are completely unfamiliar with each other in an ‘external’ relationship.

This has led to one of the dilemmas in today’s world: structurally political indifference. Each individual’s vote is insignificant, which directly leads to diffuse political indifference in contemporary democracies. If a person was seriously responsible for the votes in his hands, this ‘political right’ would not be an easy task: to vote in the referendum, that person needs to read enough background information, and expert analysis, to understand the various, advantages and disadvantages of staying and leaving EU, make their judgments on whether or not to leave the European Union. But American political critic Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) observed nearly a century ago that voters would not have the time and energy to thoroughly examine problems from all angles. The reason is very simple, if you want to do this, you need to take extra time and attention to deal with the daily work and life affairs of contemporary people who are already full of power and high pressure. At the same time, when this ‘sacred and responsible’ vote is cast, its weight is slightly insignificant. Therefore, political indifference is not a diffuse phenomenon that is difficult to understand in modern Western democratic societies.

The further paradox of this dilemma is: ‘In a democracy, a wide choice of non-selection is itself a dangerous choice.’ Unselected, in the modern Western democracy, it is a ‘choice’ (i.e. Choose not to choose), and it is a very bad kind of ‘choice’ because it makes ‘democratic autocracy’ no longer a contradiction.

This dilemma has led to the core problem of modern democracy: when the host of democratic politics is no longer a classical city-state but a modern sovereign state, how to make it truly ‘participatory democracy’, how to Arouse the active participation of citizens? Ancient Rome during the Republican period was generally not considered a democracy because it decisively refused to give everyone the right to vote; however, it may be more ‘democratic’ than today’s democratic society because all citizens must actively participate in public life and political affairs.

Democracy progressively nourishes in the lap of literacy. Democracy without literacy is like the vehicle without wheels. Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. In this system, people drive the government with the potent of literacy. But illiteracy jams the wheels and derailed the democracy out of the way. However, illiteracy can be rated as its biggest enemy because of its potential of creating such an environment that not only jeopardize the existence of democracy, but also deprives it of all the fruits that are promised by a democratic exemption. Democracy cannot flee on the back of illiteracy.

Illiteracy blurs the transparency to an opaque side. Democracy appraises literate electorates to run smoothly. Illiterate electorates are not so capable to choose visionary representatives. Lack of good education rears up unawareness in electorates, and resultantly, this unawareness leads to unwise decisions at the time of elections. Illiteracy dims awareness of fundamental rights, leading to poor governance. So, this system remains deprived of the most suitable leaders to runs its affairs.

Democracy cannot move with the false idea of literacy. If a person trudged with the mistaken belief about literacy, is also illiteracy. Illiteracy would be considered to be the inability to read and write. But illiteracy is something different to ignorance. Education can fix the illiteracy to great extent. Illiteracy is, in fact, a great curse for a country. Democracy and education are inseparable duo. Education and literacy both have a pivotal and transcendental potential to solidify democracy.

Illiteracy has a long-range effect on a democratic society. The country faced the acute shortage of services in every field of life. The institutions cannot spend according to the needs. The population of the country is increasing day by day at a neck break place. Consequently, people are deprived of many blessings which are their basic right. Ultimately, wealth of the country is distributed unequally among some hands. The poor are usually deprived of basic needs of life as inflation peeps out its ugly face. In consequence, mismanagement propels the democratic society to unemployment and poverty.

It should be noted that democracy is something different for third world. Blessing for the developed countries and a curse for the developing nation. Disproportion in the literacy rate between advanced countries and developing nations affects the positive and negative attitudes across the world. It begs the question, how can a developing nation survive with ignorance? Illiteracy entrenches feudal norms and suppresses liberties. Illiterate masses do not demand transparency in government affairs and they cannot make rulers to adopt people friendly policies. Illiterate population provides a fertile land to dictatorship, and thus a democratic society collapsed. Democracy is in declining position in developing world. Democracy needs an intensive care to revive. People needs to jump ignorance to literacy. The nation should try it’s hard to bring illiteracy down and promote democratic type of system. So that people can be rational and aware of their fundamental constitutional rights and they may understand the modes of life of the modern world.

In conclusion, democracy and illiteracy cannot move together. Government should take the incentive measures at grass root level. Prioritizing of education is the most pressing challenge as education bloods the democracy.

High levels of economic inequality have frequently been cited as a reason for why democracy may not be effective in a certain nation, or why democracy cannot prosper for long periods within a country. Democracy in this context is referring to a nation that holds free and fair elections with broad participation, along with a rule of law that contains checks and balances on power (Treisman, Lecture 1). Inequality can be determined using the Gini coefficient, a number between 1 and 100 (from equal to unequal) created by examining various factors of a nation and observing which people have power and wealth. Income inequality inhibiting democracy is far more nuanced than first glance. In fact, this theory needs to be split into two separate elements: does economic inequality prevent the establishment of democracy, and also how is inequality measured in different time periods? The measure of inequality has changed over time, and as wealth has gained mobility, this has affected the way democracy might be implemented in a nation. Scholars from Aristotle to the present day have discussed this very topic, citing various factors or reasons for why inequality cannot foster democracy. It is important to look at the difference and redistribution of the rich and poor in a society, as well as a middle class, and whether that has an impact on democracy. Similarly, capital mobility and the transition from land assets to mobile assets have a significant effect that explains why inequality might impede democracy. High levels of economic inequality impact the establishment of democracy, as factors such as the unequal distribution of power, the lack of the middle-class buffer, and the differentiation of capital prevent democracy from taking hold in certain regions in the world.

The relationship between economic inequality and democracy has been examined via the theory of redistribution explained by Alan Meltzer and Scott Richard. However, this theory does not account for the immense power that the rich have in some societies around the world to suppress protest. The Meltzer-Richard model states that when the gap between the rich and the poor increases, the rich suffer more, since they will be more heavily taxed as a result of amassing a large part of the resources in the economy (Acemoglu & Robinson, 36). Theorists point to this aspect to explain why inequality can lead to democracy; they believe the rich will want to impose a democracy to redistribute the wealth to stop tax increases (Acemoglu & Robinson, 36). This is splendid if the rich, or ‘elites’ as Acemoglu and Robinson call them, gave into democracy so simply, but power is far more valuable than wealth, and the redistribution of power is unlikely to occur with a strict authoritarian regime (15). Nations with extreme inequality and authoritarianism like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have amassed so much power and wealth that they can easily employ forces to quell pro-democratic sentiment. Their wealth and power are so consolidated at the highest level that citizens are dissuaded from protests in fear. If all else fails, elites in these places have the power to commit electoral fraud and put in a dictator, disenfranchising the poor who were hoping for democratic reforms (Treisman, Lecture 8). Electoral fraud by the elites to put their own in power can prevent democracy from taking hold in a nation, all under the guise of the democratic value of broad elections. Although the redistribution theory provides evidence for how an unequal society can potentially become democratic, it remains impractical when considering the power relations between the elites and the rest of society.

Nations with high inequality might still be democratic. However, these nations suffer from high instability and self-serving policies of the elite, due to the lack of redistributive policies. Acemoglu and Robinson use an ‘inverted U-shape’ to describe the relationship between inequality and democracy. In this case, if inequality is high, the chance for democracy to be implemented is low. However, this does not mean that there are not exceptions to this rule. Even though abuse of power may prevent democracy from flourishing in these nations, there have been many imbalanced nations that have harbored democracy, despite the inequality amongst their citizens. Latin American countries are a good example of this, as countries like Brazil have one of the highest rates of inequality in the world, but maintain a democratic system. The survival of the democratic system in Brazil is likely due to the transitional method it took to achieve democracy (Acemoglu & Robinson, 38). Since Brazil is highly unequal, its democratic transition needed redistributive policies for the poor. However, the nation took a conservative approach, which is why inequality is so high, and why Brazil has become seemingly less democratic over the years, plagued by government scandals that have taken money out of the country. As a result, democratic systems in highly unequal places are mostly unstable and volatile, since the elites are passing policies that give them more power rather than redistribute amongst the population.

Another aspect that is sometimes forgotten in this discussion of inequality hindering democracy is the establishment of a strong middle class that is instead the reason for democracy in the first place, and its absence in a country makes it difficult for an unequal country to compromise amongst its citizens. Aristotle believed that the middle class was the way to achieve democracy, exclaiming: “great then is the good fortune of the state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme…” (Aristotle,108). Rather than a highly unequal society being the cause for a lack of democracy, looking at the establishment of a large and mobile middle class can explain why democracy occurs in certain places rather than others. The middle class has access to a sufficient amount of resources as well as being educated, which makes democracy easier to swallow for elites that are concerned about extending democracy to the outer reaches of society (Acemoglu & Robinson, 39). Additionally, the middle class normally pushes for democracy because they have the economic means to participate in a social movement (Acemoglu & Robinson, 39). It is during a period of a large middle class that democracy does well, and societies without an established middle class suffer from this lack of a buffer between the rich and poor (Acemoglu & Robinson, 39). Acemoglu and Robinson reference Costa Rica as being a strong democracy in comparison with its Central American neighbors like Nicaragua and El Salvador, who lacked the middle class Costa Rica had. As a result, it was difficult for democracy to take hold in the region; there was larger inequality between the rich and the poor, with no middle class to bridge the gap. However, there are cases where a middle class is present, and the country is highly unequal, and this inequality prevails over a middle class trying to establish a democracy. China is a prime example of this, as the high level of inequality in the country and the oppressive power of the elites in country prevent the middle class from participating in any democratic movement. Ultimately, the absence of a middle class will usually stop democracy from gaining hold in the region, because the middle class provides resources for the transition to democracy.

One of the most important factors supporting the notion that inequality hinders democracy is the differentiation and disbursement of capital across time. Carles Boix, one of the proponents for inequality hampering democracy, believes there is a downward sloping relationship between the two, and the less likely it is for a democracy to emerge from an extremely unequal society (Tresiman, Lecture 8). One aspect of his graph he is missing is that he does not seem to take into account the change in capital that members of the elite have procured. In the 19th century, capital and property of the rich was based in land ownership. As a result, there seems to be a negative relationship between the land owned by large farms and a democratic system; when the elite owns most of the land, democracy does not flourish (Treisman, Lecture 8). When examining the 20th century, it is important to take into account the change from land being the primary source of capital to relatively mobile assets like human or financial capital (Treisman, Lecture 8). Money, technology, and goods are all easily movable to places like offshore banking centers, something that was impossible to do with land. Since the rich accrue mobile capital, a threat of democracy, and subsequently a redistribution of wealth, can be quickly avoided by transferring capital out of the nation. This tactic of hiding capital provides the elites with more power, as wealth could be held captive, ultimately making the poor citizens refrain from democratic movements. The movement of wealth in the 21st century allows highly unequal states to remain authoritarian, since the elites will simply use their mobility to invest elsewhere, leaving the lower classes in a precarious situation.

Nations with high inequality hinder democracy due to the immense power of the elites, along with a lack of a middle class, and the easy mobility of capital, all of which prevent citizens from fighting for democratic reforms. Other factors of course influence a country’s unique transition to democracy, like race, religion, or class reasons. Future research could potentially reveal other effects that explain a country’s ability to democratize, like the influence of global or ideological factors. The absence of a middle class, combined with the power and mobility of the elites in highly unequal countries create a climate relatively unsuitable for democratic change.

Works Cited

1. Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. 2006, Chapter 2, pp. 15-47.
2. Aristotle. “Section 11”. The Politics, Book IV, pp. 106-109.
3. Treisman, Daniel. Lecture 1: Introduction. Roots of Democracy, University of California Los Angeles, January 8, 2019, Los Angeles.
4. Treisman, Daniel. Lecture 8: Inequality and democracy. Roots of Democracy, University of California Los Angeles, January 31, 2019, Los Angeles.

The theoretical discourse underpinning the relationship between democracy and the developmental performance of markets and states, especially in the developing countries, has been at stake for millennia and still has not reached a definite consensus about whether this particular type of non-market institutions actually causally results in economic growth. However, the comprehensive existing literature on this highly salient topic draws on the idea that even if democracy is preferable, it is not a necessary precondition for development. In order to assess the failures of the democratic system in promoting good economic governance, it is firstly necessary to clarify how these concepts are understood and used in this paper. This essay will argue that the success or failure of the political system to promote good economic governance is deeply interconnected with the historical context of the country that characterizes. To clarify this, the paper will present the contemporary and classical perspectives that dominate this discourse. Thirdly, the essay will argue that the rise of democracy is dependent on “local knowledge” of the state it occurs and, conversely to the classical view, it cannot be applied everywhere disregarding those circumstances. Indeed, the essay will present the main differences in the political and economic systems that underpin advanced and developing countries and that explain why democracy is not always functional to the early economic take-off.

First of all, both concepts of democracy and good economic governance are very broad and difficult to define, however in this essay, the former is defined as a system of rules for electing the executive and the legislature that constitute the government of a society through a process of competitive and contested elections (Khan, 2005). On the other hand, the latter is often described to involve the creation of a government, which is, among other things democratic, open, accountable, transparent and which respects and fosters human rights and the rule of law (). The contemporary perspective that characterizes the discourse around the relationship between regime types and economic governance argues that democracy improves the quality of economic governance through accountability, transparency, and civil participation. Indeed, the democratic system hold rulers accountable through contested election and through the presence of civil society and seems to legitimize very difficult decision-making.

The classical perspective of scholars like Donnell and Huntington, on the contrary, argues that miracle economies were facilitated by the authoritarian rule. Huntington claims that at the early developmental stage authoritarianism is the more conducive political framework for economic development. Indeed, economic growth depends on regime stability, which in turn depend on political institutionalization. In other words, economic growth generates higher social expectations that, if not met, lead to social conflicts. These conflicts are the result of social participation that necessitates to be institutionalized and guided and in democratic regimes, at this early phase of industrialization, people still may not be used to compromise.

Essentially, in this view by prioritizing the long-term authoritarianism wealth creation the formation of the middle class is facilitated and the formation of the middle class provided the basis for democratization and the rise for a more liberalized economy. Therefore, authoritarianism long-termism unleashes social forces in the shape of the middle class that then overturn the authoritarian rule in favor of democracy.

From the analysis of these two views it is already clear that for some countries the democratic system works better than in others in promoting good economic governance. In these instances, the essay will take into scrutiny two case studies that best support the concept of “local knowledge” (Rodrik). This definition involves clearly accepting the institutional plurality that underpins the globe. Indeed, American capitalism is distinct from Japanese capitalism, and both are distinct from European capitalism. Nonetheless, most structural change in developed countries is predicated on the expectation of a single system of structures worth emulating. By examining the disparities in democratic rivalry between emerging and industrialized countries, it becomes apparent that democracy has contributed relatively little to economic development in developing countries. Narayan et al., state that economic democracy requires a nation to have defined channels that instill a balance of the executive powers, have a well-developed legal system, and a forum that promotes transparency and enables civil participation in the development of economic policies (). This is confirmed by the majority of advanced countries. The level of economic development of advanced capitalist countries means that the have a dominant capitalist sector (). In this context, a high level of economic growth often suggests that redistributive agendas are structured around broad-based institutions that embody the economic interests of vast numbers of people. Democracies, hence, result to be the optimal institutional system for promoting economic governance.

On the contrary, the less industrialised a nation is, the more acute the divergence between its features and those of advanced countries is. Developing countries seem to lack a well-defined economic framework, and their government structures are much more chaotic than in industrialised countries. Secondly, economic underdevelopment results in highly personalized redistributive agendas (). Additionally, patron-client networks are expected to evolve as the most rational organisational framework for faction representatives around the social structure. Factional leaders make promises to their customers in exchange for their corporate patronage, which motivates those below them, resulting in the formation of the so-called pyramidal patron-client network. Political groups, in particular, pursue an alliance that can mobilise organisational power at the lowest possible expense to the faction leader in order to accomplish wealth and income allocation by a mixture of legitimate, quasi-legal, and illegal means. Brazil, for example, demonstrated that it suffered from the democratic cycle that began in 1945 and ended in 1964, in this context of political factionalism and economic underdevelopment. Indeed, democratic Brazil excluded a majority of adults due to literacy requirements. As a result, conservative Brazil neglected civil participation. This can be illustrated by returning to Huntington’s classical view, which holds that political engagement can be accomplished following the development of basic capital in order to encourage educational investments and literacy. Another aspect of the failure of the democratic system towards good governance is the predilection towards short-termism that characterizes modern democracies. Politicians in this setting sometimes serve terms of fewer than five years, leading not only to potential political instability, but also to create policy confusion. As a consequence, leaders tasks are often disrupted by campaigns, which divert attention away from the task of tackling long-term policy issues.

Since electoral institutions promote such short-term projects, policymakers also overlook long-term economic problems, such as education and infrastructure, that do not yield immediate political benefits.

To summarize, it has been argued that liberal democracies do not always lead to good economic governance due to a number of factors that underpin both the economic and political context taken into consideration. In particular, the concept of “local knowledge” proved to be crucial in the explanation that there is not only a single set of institutions, namely the democratic ones, that can lead to good economic governance. In addition, in order to support this hypothesis the essay analyzed the main differences underpinning developed and developing economies, that in turn led to the clarification of those democratic practices that delay economic and social growth.

In recent discussions of the true power of education, a controversial issue has been whether education is the most powerful means to sustain democracy and freedom. On the one hand, some argue that education is not the most powerful means to sustain democracy and freedom. From this perspective, people see how there could be faults in the educational system and unequal opportunities that can be found in the education system that could cause there to be other factors that carry the democracy and freedom that we live with today. On the other hand, however, others argue that the power of education is the most powerful means to sustaining democracy and freedom and that education is what opens the doors to sustaining freedom and democracy. In sum, the issue is whether education is the powerful means to sustain democracy and freedom or if it is not and there are other ways that democracy and freedom have been sustained throughout the years that affect it more than the educational system. My view is that education is the most powerful means to sustain democracy and freedom. Though I concede that there could be other factors in some cases where education is not the most powerful means of sustaining democracy and freedom, I still maintain that the true power of education is the most powerful means to sustaining democracy, and this can be proven through anecdotes and Mary Antin’s perspective.

Education is the most powerful means to sustain democracy and freedom can be shown through the experiences of Mary Antin as an immigrant that came to America. The end of the text states: “…and my father, in his impossible English, gave us over in her charge, with some broken word of his hopes for us that his swelling heart could no longer contain”. This piece of the text is important because it shows that the father could only have a small amount of understanding in English, not understanding English could hinder the sustaining of democracy this is because it may not just be in the father, this is a common occurrence. The little knowledge of English the father may lead to him not knowing where to look to vote or how to vote, and like mentioned before, this is not just with the father, this occurs all around us. It occurs all around us with people who lack education, these people fall through the cracks in our efforts of trying to sustain democracy. It could also occur due to people moving to the United States in search of a place where there are more options to make money. When moving here, they may not know English, and people around them may have a hard time communicating with them. There could also be discrimination or alienation against the person who may have just moved to the United States and not have the education needed to learn English, and this causes them to be vulnerable and susceptible to false information. All are examples of what could be the reason his freedom could be hindered and this is due to a lack of education, with education this could be avoided, this is why education is the most powerful means to sustain democracy and freedom.

A specific experience/anecdote that I have been told is when my father moved from his poverty-filled town in Mexico to the United States in search of the American Dream. One of the first things that he did when he came to the United States was to take adult classes to learn English. Attending adult school and getting an education opened doors for him in America. In the case of Mary Antin’s father, the text states, “he was the master of no art, of no trade that even his precious learning was of no avail because he had only the most antiquated methods of communicating it”. Where Mary Antin’s father had no proper education, my father did have at least some knowledge, and it opened gateways of freedom for him in choosing a job, even though it was limited to the education that he attained. His freedom was limited in some aspects due to his lack of education, his lack of education was due to school not being free and his family did not have the money to send him to school. My father did not have the same opportunity as many others take for granted, and my father is not the only one in this situation where he was unable to attend school because he had to work to put food on the table at a young age. Through his struggles and being taken advantage of, he settled down with a job at a restaurant; educating himself in English is necessary when working in a restaurant because of the necessary interaction between humans. Choosing a job is the same freedom that an American has, and my father gained it through the power of education. Sustaining democracy could also be the direct effect of this education, due to my father learning English, he can better navigate where to vote and where to ask for assistance.

On the other hand, not all people can acquire the same level of education that some are fortunate to have. And in some cases, these people who don’t acquire the same level of education still understand how to sustain democracy and freedom. Although this may be in some cases, it is not in the majority. The majority of people need to be guided to figure out what is right from wrong, since we were first born, we were taught our rights from our wrongs, and the educational system does this to help people figure out their political stance. The educational system helps those who don’t understand politics and teaches them who should be given credibility. The educational system educates people on who is credible by showing them the difference between bias and a person who has done their research before stating their view. The ability to differentiate between bias and research is how the education system also helps in understanding politics and choosing who is fit to be a leader.

In conclusion, education is powerful when it comes to freedom and sustaining democracy. Through education, people can learn new things that could open doors for them and be the gateway to freedom. Education also has a big part in sustaining democracy in the way of teaching people what is right and wrong and teaching people about different sides that they could choose on their own depending on their morals and figuring out who is credible.

Democracy is seen as a worthy cause in the world, but there is a lot of debate about the consequences of democracy, the process of democratization and its image of being the most perfect system ever. For example, it is questionable whether democratization brings benefits economically as a given and whether democracy leads to peace. On the other hand, there is also a debate about the possible causes of natural democratization. Do developing countries have less chance of democratization, does corruption prevent the democratization process? In this essay a similar debate is going on with regards to economic growth.

Economic recessions are seen as a problem, but its causes and consequences are a subject of discussion. Does economic growth lead to a decline or to an increase in democracy and vice versa? Does economic development turn to an increase in corruption without democracy?

Democracy and economic growth are also frequently linked. Both are seen as a possible cause and possible consequence of the other, in other words: 1) economic development increases or decreases the chance of democratization; 2) democratization and democracy lead to an increase or decrease in economic development.

Why Democracy Is Linked to Economic Growth?

Democratization is expected to affect a decrease in financial inequality on the basis of the median voter hypothesis. The median voter is the voter whose income is equal to the median of all incomes. Half of the voters earn more than he does, half earn less. As long as it is in the interest of half (plus one) of voters to redistribute, because the average income is higher than theirs, a democratic government according to the median-voter hypothesis would do so for the benefit of the half plus one. For example, through a progressive tax system. More money for most people would lead to a stronger middle-class and more leverage for economic development to grow the economic, thus the theory (Carbone, 2009).

After all, according to the standard theories, the government conforms to the will of the median voter (Boix, 2010), in which the will of the poor or victims of economic underdevelopment cannot be ignored if they make up too much of the population. In the event that the median voter earns less than the average they will argue for redistribution or more quality developmental programs/initiatives for the economy. This is confirmed by the fact that the extension of the right to vote (to the poorer population) in Europe has led to unprecedented redistribution programs and huge economic development programs in poorer regions of the continent to stimulate economic growth (Acemoglu, 2000).

This idea is undisputed in many literatures and functions as a kind of baseline for all research related to this topic. There is almost no pin between its theoretical explanation. It cannot be otherwise than that a democratic system, based on the idea of equality and fair voting, has a better effect than an autocratic, fundamentally unequal system. Nevertheless, a number of drawbacks adhere to this hypothesis.

Drawbacks of This Theory

First of all, this hypothesis works only when political power forms a pure representation of the population in a country. If the election turnout is not 100% (and not by chance perfectly representative), then this leads to less (or more) redistribution of economic goods, depending on which income group is underrepresented (Bonica 2013). In those cases, the median voter does not have the actual median income and thus its final result will not be able to claim that economic growth is due to democratic institutions creating a forceful demand for quality economic growth.

The voting system also plays an important role in this. After all, this is the basis for a democratic party system, the government composition and thus the possible political motive for economic development (Iversen 2006,). For the electoral system too, not every voter has the same influence when not every vote counts equally. The voice of the economically disadvantaged seems to be better heard in a system of proportional representation: in that state of being, it is more likely to have a pro-economic development coalition in power (Iversen 2006).

Thirdly, the extent to which society as a whole is organized is important for the extent to which actual political pressure can be exercised and thus the question of whether the government proceeds or is able to develop its economy. A strong civil society is better able to exert effective pressure. The construct in which the poor voters in particular are organized makes a difference for their influence on policy and thus for political pressure to redistribute or develop.

Democracy always has its winners and losers and not every citizen has the same influence. Often the upper class is considered to be better organized and therefore more influential than the poor, who have the greatest difficulty influencing the policy process to suggest better qualitative programs to support economic growth (Carbone, 2009). In other words, it is very questionable whether the casting of a vote offers sufficient and equal opportunity to exercise influence by every citizen. If not, the median voter can argue for redistribution or development, but the richer electorates actually have more influences because of their stronger position in civil society and thus less effective pressure for economic development/growth will adhere.

Finally, even if it were to be assumed that every electorate exercises the same effective influence, votes for purely economic considerations and thus actually moves the country to proceed to focus on economic growth, the question remains whether this government policy that came from electoral positions can also bring about the desired consequences. In other words, does government policy work? Do people know what is best for them? Democracies tend to invest in the social sector, but that does not guarantee that the poor or the economy actually benefit from it (Carbone, 2009, p.135). The state capacity differs per country and a weak state has an impeding influence on policy implantation (Bermeo, 2009) The power of a state and of a democracy in particular is supposed to be related to its stability. Stability arises over a long time, creating a much stronger link between political participation and the understandings of the economy than the democratic level and willingness alone, at least when controlled for economic growth (Muller, 1988). On this basis, it is suggested that the influence of democratization on economic growth only after about twenty years will begin to play a role, but it is still not clearly defined as a sole reason for positive results. A recently democratized state cannot be expected to make policy for the long term, while everything in that is still fluctuating.

Conclusion

The more theoretic, procedural requirements of maximum voter turnout and proportional electoral systems seem in any case to play no or a limited role. I suspect this has to do with the narrow approach to democracy (as process) where these variables are strongly ignored: the electoral system, degree of organization, corruption differs, voting motives and effectiveness of governments. In my opinion, the relationship between democracy and a country’s economic growth is thus far inconclusive.

References

1. Carbone, G. (2009). The Consequences of Democratization. Journal of Democracy, 20(2).
2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J.A. (2000). Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Democracy, Inequality, and Growth in Historical Perspective. Quarterly Journal of Economics.
3. Bonica, A., McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2013). Why Hasn’t Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality. Journal of Economic Perspectives.
4. Iversen, Torben and Soskice (2006). Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More than Others.
5. Bermeo, N. (2009). Does Electoral Democracy Boost Economic Equality? Journal of Democracy.
6. Muller, E. (1988). Democracy, Economic Development, and Income Inequality. American Sociological Review; Official Journal of the American Sociological Association.

He argued for direct involvement in his work the Social contract displaying that ‘to be represented is to give up’. Direct democracy makes frequent use of referendums where citizens are asked directly instead of matters being discussed through elected MP’s. Nonetheless, this system isn’t flawless. It requires the affair to be simple, at the same time as binary. As soon as the issue becomes complicated it loses its authority to serve its purpose since it only allows space for a yes or no question. There is no room for greys in a system that is designed for black and white. Also, throughout history, referendums have been frequently used by dictators in an attempt to legitimate their power, rendering this type of democracy vulnerable to its abuse.

Modernly, democracy is conceived as electing the representatives of the people, ruling out direct democracy. This entails certain conditions. First of all the existence of choice which infers that people have to be given several options and the chance to decide freely between them. This implies pluralism, freedom of speech and press. As well as this, everyone should be eligible as well as elector. The electoral system also has a big impact on the outcome. For instance, the British system favours the existence of two big parties. It reduces pluralism but make it easier to form stable governments. A proportional system, allows more parties into Parliament but has to frequently rely on coalitions to form governments.

Another concept inherent to how democracy works, is the idea that the system is not only ruled by the majority, but also protects minorities. First of all, elections have to be held at regular intervals to allow a change of government. Hitler, for example, came to power by election but soon afterwards eliminated democracy. Secondly, the rule of majority is not the tyranny of majority. Alexis de Tocqueville brings up a fundamental flaw to the system expressed in his book Democracy in America (1835) where he addresses the ‘tyranny of the majority’ where suddenly the risk of minorities rights being threatened by the intolerant masses appears. Modernly it is admitted that democracy has to comply with the respect of Human Rights as defined by International Organisations.

The last matter relating democracy I’d like to draw up is the importance of the division of powers. Montesquieu established that power should be split between the Parliament which makes the laws, the government which executes them and the judicial power which controls the application of law. Without what the Americans call a “check and balance” system, a true democracy doesn’t exist.

Nowadays we can say that democracy has never been so acclaimed, since everybody relies on it as a legitimation principle, however, its current working has to be continuously checked so as to be sure that it is adapted to the initial idea. Modernly we have to address several issues. One of the most important being, what is the impact of technology? Technology can help direct democracy but it has also facilitated the ease with which leaders can court uninformed public opinion, exemplified in Trumps use of twitter or Hugo Chavez and his television phone-in show called ‘Aló presidente’. It has also been a strong precursor of fake news. Another pressing issue is the people´s feeling of disconnect from the government. For a long time it brought about political apathy. People didn´t go to vote as they rendered it useless. Modernly, populism has taken the relay. People are rising in anger all around the world and the conception that the governing have detached themselves from the governed is growing in strength as the ‘gilets jaunes’ take the streets to reclaim their rights. It is the people against the elite.

We must now conclude by establishing how we should interpret democracy if it is to have any chance at survival. Democracy should be seen as a delicate and layered flower in need of nurturing, watering and caring for, if it is to flourish and perform its functions, which in this case would be, the power to vote, the maintenance of freedom of speech and the separation of powers. In continuance with the analogy, as time takes its toll on it, and eras change, it must shed its petals and grow new ones in accordance to current movements, to ensure it is not left behind. Its classical foundation has to be rejected and redefined in order to enable dynamism and the engagement with current civilians. This is the only way it’ll be able to survive and pull through, in this time of crisis where conflict seems to loom upon the very nature of it.

Democracy, according to Abraham Lincoln former American President is a government of the people by the people and for the people. In other words “Democracy is a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity are involved in decision making”. Most theories of democracy are based on the principle of “government by the people”. This implies that people participate in the making of crucial decisions that influence their lives and determine the societal environment. Bühlmann (2008) defines “Democracy as a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens. ” In etymological terms, the word democracy comes from ancient Greek (demokratia), which combines demos, the “people”, with kratos, meaning “rule”, “power “or “strength”.

Democracy is a system of government where by people participates in government either directly or through representatives periodically elected by themselves. It is the government of the people by the people and for the people. Minimalist democracy refers to government of the people that is supposed to promote just effective governance. Maximalist democracy refers government of, by, and for the people. Best representation, high participation and greater possibility of social justice. Based on a maximalist understanding of democracy, it entails the characteristics of the representative and participatory types of democracy, but considers the social prerequisites of citizens also essential for fair and meaningful democratic participation. Therefore, looking at both definitions of maximalist and minimalist forms of democracy adheres to the following principles. Hence draws the following similarities which includes;

Firstly, in both, people’s fundamental freedoms and fundamental, however, human rights are much more than a mere component of democracy. They represent sine qua non requirements for the well performing of a democratic system. The development and evolution of human rights are only possible when humans live in a democracy, given the fact that it is only within this system that the population itself can draw up the laws that will rule and publicly control the three powers: the legislative power (power to propose and vote for laws: for example in Madagascar, this is the role of the Parliament), the executive power (power to enforce laws: in Madagascar, this is the role of the President of the Republic and the Government) and the judiciary power (power to make and to promulgate laws, in addition, for example, the High Constitutional Court).

Moreover, human rights are only efficient when the State power is linked to an autonomy and independence right, and when all the individuals are treated on equal terms in front of this justice. In the same way, it is essential, in any democracy, to establish a clear separation of powers, so that the judiciary can be autonomous and independent. The result will be a triangular relation between Democracy, Human Rights and Separation of Powers, which thus represent interdependent elements.

Secondly, in both maximalist and minimalist elections constitute one of the most important pillars of democracy. These are the texts of electoral law that rule and clearly define both the organization of these elections, and how to undertake the deduction of the votes in order to assign them to the corresponding seats. This implies that there is an active electoral law and a passive electoral law. Citizens who can use active electoral law have the right to vote whereas those who can use passive electoral law have the right to be elected. In most cases, the whole electorate can use both types of right. Democratic elections are free when citizens have the right to choose from several candidates or parties that can run for the election without any restriction. They must also be free to decide whether they want to use their right to vote or to abstain from doing so, if they prefer allow for people to choose a leader of their choice through free and fair elections.

Thirdly, both uphold the rule of law, which stresses that there are fundamental principles and procedures that guarantee the freedom of each individual and which allow participation in political life. There is, first of all, the right to a free blossoming of individual personality. To sum it up, the power of the State is linked to the laws that rule it. Thus, the notion of Rule of Law is directly opposed to that of “Police State “or “Despotic State”. In a democratic State, all the citizens are equal in front of the law, even state employees and administration. The latter can only take action when it has been vested with the accruing responsibility by law or by the Constitution. The rule of law is then always founded on the respect of law and Constitution. This is a system that holds the State accountable for its acts in front of the citizens and it also gives the latter the opportunity to take a stand and to react according to its acts. In this State ruled order, citizens are completely free to take part in political life as well.

Fourthly, both uphold separation of powers, there are three State powers within a State and these includes; legislative power draws up and adopts laws, executive power enforces laws and government policies and judiciary power represents the legal framework for exercising the power. Separation of powers means “division” of the State power. In a democratic State, the power of the State can be controlled and influenced efficiently, first and foremost, by itself. The State power must then be distributed among several organs. In general, it is the constitution of a country that settles how the State power is to be distributed among different organs and what attributions are to be assigned to them respectively. In general, it is the Constitution of a country that settles how the State power is to be distributed among different organs and what attributions are to be assigned to them respectively. As a general rule, there are two government systems that need to be distinguished: the “parliamentary regime” and the “presidential regime”.

In parliamentary regimes, the government stems from the parliament that is elected by the people. Ministers within the government can also be vested with a double mandate. The government is put in place by the Parliament and can be destitute in the same way at any time by the latter. The government attributions and that of the parliament interlock. In general, it is the government that deals with documents for the drawing up and proposals of law. However, it cannot decide anything on the way those bills are passed. Each bill is subject to a vote at the parliament; consequently, the government depends on the parliament for passing the bills that it puts forward. Additionally, political parties play a very important role as the majority at the parliament constitutes the necessary requirement for accession to government seats. According to Hetherington, K. (2009) as the concept of democracy is highly contestable almost everyone has a different view on what it means to call a country a democracy, or to call it more or less democratic than another it’s not surprising to see that most of the research projects that have attempted to measure democracy such as Polity IV, Freedom House for example have chosen a different definition of democracy, and are, therefore, actually measuring something different the minimalist and the maximalist one. The former could, for example, view democracy as no more than a system of regular elections, and measure simply the presence or absence of elections in different countries. The latter, on the other hand, could include in its definition of democracy stuff like rights protections, freedom of the press, division of powers for example and measure the presence or absence of all of these things, and aggregate the different scores in order to decide whether a country is democratic or not, and to what extent. However, having looked at the similarities between the minimalist and maximalist forms of democracy, the following are some of the differences.

The use of a maximalist definition of democracy would make it possible to rank all types of regimes on such an ordinal scale. A maximalist definition of democracy would include a relatively large number of necessary attributes of democracy, and the combination of presence/ absence/partial development of each attribute would almost make it possible to give each country a unique ranking the ordinal scale. Such a wide- ranging differentiation is an advantage for progress analysis. A binary scale does not give any information on the quality of democracy. Hence, it would be better to speak of measuring democratization rather than measuring democracy and democratization not only in the sense of a transition from authoritarian to democratic governance, but also in the sense of progress towards a deepening of democratic rule.

While, the minimalist definition of democracy necessarily focuses on just a few attributes of democracy. As a result, it is impossible to differentiate between degrees of “democraticness” of different countries. Moreover, the chosen attributes may not be typical of or exclusive to democracy (such as good governance or citizen influence), and may not include some necessary attributes. For example, Polity IV, perhaps the most widely used measure of democracy, does not sufficiently incorporate actual citizen participation, as opposed to the mere right of citizens to participate. Hence, it’s not fair to say that a country that gives its citizens the right to vote but doesn’t actually have many citizens voting can hardly be called a democracy. The maximalist democracy measurement system offers a lot of information and the possibility to compare countries beyond the simple dichotomy of democracy/nondemocracy, but it may be rejected by those who claim that this system is not measuring democracy as they understand the word whereas minimalist system will measure something that is useful for many people as no one will contest that elections are necessary for democracy for instance, but will also reduce the utility of the measurement results because it does not yield a lot of information about countries.

On the other hand, the minimalist camp claims that there is a sense that the people need a supreme authority or state that seeks to shape and regulate social life while the maximalist democracy views that social life of its citizens should not at any point be regulated because it is viewed as a violation of human rights.

Further, in the minimalist there is a notion that people should be led as opposed to ‘participate’ in public affairs. According to Joseph Schumpeter’s view supports that the state takes power from the people, as the people are just as willing to submit to it. He accepts that people can grasp local or personally specific political issues, but he believes that they have no incentive to participate in national or international issues. His theory claims that the peoples’ lack of skill or capacity means that they are easily manipulated. His vision could certainly help to provide an explanation for example, of the political affairs in Nazi Germany and the mass votes for the victorious National Socialist Party (his book was written during World War II). While in the maximalist, people actively participate in public affairs public participation is an action or a series of actions a person takes to involve themselves in affairs of government or community. These activities include voting, attending meetings, participating in public or private political discussion or debate on issues, signing a petition on a desired government action or policy, volunteering in community activities and contributing money to a political party or candidate of one’s choice among other similar activities so that the citizen can know if their participation is adding value to the governance process or not.

In conclusion, democracy can be defined: minimally ‘in terms of procedures such as competitive elections’ and maximally ‘in terms of ideas of participation, deliberation and the direct involvement of citizens in government. However, the maximalist is that the measurement will are more open to controversy. The more attributes of democracy are included in the measure, the higher the risk of disagreement on the model of democracy as people have differentiate as about the number and type of necessary attributes of a democracy, even of an ideal democracy. On other hand the minimalist definition makes it very difficult to differentiate between countries. It would make it possible to distinguish democracies (minimally defined) from nondemocracies, but it wouldn’t allow measuring the degree of democracy of a given country.

In this essay I will argue that there is no better political system than democracy. I will make this argument through a consistent comparison between democracy and other forms of political system, evaluating each in turn with reference to consent, freedom, equality, and wisdom. Other forms of political system include autocratic, authoritarian, despotic, dictatorial, tyrannical, totalitarian, absolutist, traditional, monarchic, oligarchic, plutocratic, aristocratic, and sultanistic (Schmitter and Karl, 1991: 4), and these can all be broken into subsets. For the sake of simplicity, I will focus my discussion on democracy, anarchism, autocracy, and authoritarian governments, with some overlap between autocracy, authoritarianism, and monarchy. While I will argue that democracy provides the greatest variation of wisdom, consent, freedom, and equality, then any feasible alternative, the overarching theme of my claim will be that democracy is derived from the consent of the people, and thus holds greater claims to legitimacy than any alternative. This essay will conclude that this is important because democracy consistently perpetuates the will of the people to a greater extent than any of the alternative political systems discussed in this essay, thereby marking it as the best political system.

Consent

I would argue that democracy has a greater claim to legitimacy, and so is fundamentally superior to any other political system, due to the nature of consent required by the electorate. Indeed, this is an argument also advocated by Bermeo (1992: 287) and Diamond (1990: 49). Unlike authoritarian regimes, democracy relies on permitting the people to elect representatives in free elections that best reflect their interests. Additionally, as democracy is based on the consent of the governed, it is thus contingent on popular legitimacy to a far greater degree than any other form of government (Diamond, 1990: 49), that being consent-based legitimacy. Indeed, in the absence of widespread support of public opinion, democratic stability is not possible (Rose and Mishler, 1996: 31). Authoritarian regimes and monarchies, on the other hand, are not dependent on popular consent as they do not require free and fair elections (Diamond, 1990: 50), and thus are illegitimate. This is often reflected through policies implemented that do not represent the will of the people, as demonstrated by General Pinochet’s harsh austerity measures in authoritarian autocratic Chile (ibid).

Systems of government that are not based on popular consent, such as Pinochet’s authoritarianism, are justified in situations when a concentrated distribution of political power is seen as a necessary response to the tensions of late development (Bollen, 1979: 574). Indeed, the lack of short-run accountability due to the absence of popular consent allowed Pinochet to implement short-run austerity measures to promote long-term economic prosperity (Diamond, 1990:50). I cannot help but critique this form of governance as the lack of accountability, derived from the absence of consent, implies that there is no source of power than the autocrat cannot overrule (Olson, 1993: 571), merely reflecting the will of the one, or the few, with elites able to create a manufactured will of the people (Schumpeter, 1967: 167). This in turn means that unlike democracies, authoritarian regimes are incapable of learning and adapting from their previous mistakes as they lack the feedback mechanism to do so via competitive elections. Indeed, democracy’s claim to superiority is derived from the ability to learn from mistakes and to rectify them through voting governments out of office (Rose and Mishler, 1996: 53). Strategically, democracies are forced to account for the interests of society as there is an incentive to respond the needs of the electorate, so to stay in power via the process of competitive elections (Christiano, 2019: 81). Similarly, new administrations can adapt and learn from previous administrations failures to satisfy the will of the people, unlike authoritarian regimes which cannot be voted out of power.

On the topic of elections, this is not to say that they are the endpoint in defining democracy, but fair and free elections are certainly a good indication of the degree of democracy in a country, that is elections based on a degree of uncertainty of who will be in power and what their policies will be (Schmitter and Karl, 1991: 10). Santas argues that the best way to find out if the ruled consent is by elections (Santas, 2007: 79), but in addressing the fallacy of electoralism (Schmitter and Karl, 1991: 6), I would challenge this claim. North Korea is not simply a democracy because there is a decision-making process via the election. Self-government and self-determination are more so about the authorship of decisions, opposed to merely making them (Post, 2006: 26), thereby reflecting the true will of the people, thus incorporating their consent. This is an argument further supported by Dahl, who concludes that only a democratic government can provide the maximum opportunities for the freedom of self-determination (Dahl, 1996: 53), that is living under laws of the electorate choosing, thereby showcasing their consent.

Contrary to this, one could argue that as they are a minority in the electorate and are thus ruled by the tyranny of the majority, they have grounds to not consent to their democratic government. This could perhaps undermine my claim that there is no better political system than democracy. Indeed, why should you obey laws if you do not consent to them? In addressing this claim, I again draw on Dahl, claiming that a perfect consensus is an unobtainable goal (ibid., 54). Surely, what is good for citizens A, B, and C will not always be good for citizen D, but rather democracy is a scenario where the beliefs of some are of greater importance than the beliefs of others (Bormeo, 1992: 267), with the task of the government to promote the greatest happiness in the greatest number of citizens (Birch, 2007: 121). While dismissing some citizens consent in favour of others is by no means perfect, it is a far better system than that of authoritarian, autocratic, or monarchical regimes, which fail to be based on popular consent and reflect only the will of the few. Democracies incorporate popular consent to a far greater degree than any other political system, and thus have a greater claim to legitimacy as the best form of political system.

Freedom

In addition to democratic legitimacy derived from the consent of the electorate, I would also argue that there is no better political system than democracy in regard to protecting personal freedoms. Indeed, this is a line of argument that is advocated by Dahl, making the case that democracy permits a greater range of personal freedoms, more so than any feasible alternative (Dahl, 1996: 50). This in turn provides support for additional rights and liberties (ibid., 51), including the freedom of choice and, more importantly regarding consent, the freedom of self-determination, that is to live under laws of one’s own choosing (ibid., 53). The freedom of self-determination is of great significance upon evaluating whether there is a better political system than democracy because it links closely with the concept of equality. Democratic forms of government are those in which the laws are made by the same people to whom they apply (Post, 2006: 25), highlighting the elements of self-determination and equality in democracies. In contrast to this, ‘in autocratic forms of government the law-makers are different from those to whom the laws are addressed(ibid). This showcases the degree of inequality between the rulers and the ruled in autocratic forms of government, and the lack of self-determination of the citizens. In this scenario, autocracies again lack the consent of the people as they are deprived of any input and are thus illegitimate. Indeed, in the instance that a governmental system fails to administer laws equitably and fairly, as well as failing to allow citizens equal access to the political process, they are largely classified as illegitimate (Anderson and Tverdova, 2003: 91). This, I would argue, marks autocracies as a worse political system than democracy. Indeed, it is democracy’s claim to legitimacy that marks it as a better form political system than any feasible alternative.

In evaluating another form of political system, anarchists argue that through the abolishment of the state, people would experience far greater freedoms. On this basis, anarchists argue that anarchism is a better political system than democracy. As the freedom we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life (Dahl, 1996: 51), with the absence of restrictions, such as laws, imposed by the government, people’s negative liberty would be enhanced. However, there are significant dangers of negative liberty. While freedom from the authority of a governing body seems attractive, state neutrality can leave its population uneducated, perhaps to the extent of not knowing what is in their own best interests. Indeed, Berlin raises the question, what is freedom for those who cannot make use of it? (Miller and Berlin, 2006: 36). The role of government, a democratic government in this instance, can be to intervene and educate its population, and is justified in doing so, if it leads to a more enlightened outlook on life. To this extent, a democratic system is better at protecting positive freedoms, of which are of greater importance, I would argue. Mill argues that civilisation cannot advance unless the individual is left to his own wishes (ibid., 39), but I am inclined to challenge this claim, instead taking the side of Locke, arguing that there is no freedom where there is no law (ibid., 49), further supported by Berlin, making the case that coercion by the government can help prevent greater evils (ibid., 42). Indeed, the limitations upon freedom in a society are justified on the grounds that the vitalities may be destructive (Niebuhr, 1972: 32), making the case that democratic systems are a better alternative than anarchism, even when addressing personal freedoms.

There are, however, dangers of positive liberty, most importantly the claim that democratic governments have a greater degree of rational wisdom than their populations. In extreme cases, this could lead to oppression, reflecting the attitudes of authoritarian regimes, as governments prefer the advantages of coerced unity at the price of freedom (ibid., 5). Despite this, I would still make the case that democratic systems are better than any feasible alternative, further supported by empirical studies. Since the collapse of authoritarian communism in Eastern Europe, all countries have improved their position on the Freedom House Scale, with their previous regimes being identified with repression (Rose and Mishler, 1996: 37). In addition to this, countries including Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria, and Italy have experienced authoritarian rule and reacted in favour of democracy as an alternative (ibid., 30). This again showcases the greater degree of consent in democratic systems of government, resulting from greater personal freedoms, thus illustrating their legitimacy compared to the alternatives of authoritarianism and anarchy. Indeed, measuring consent in an anarchic society would be very difficult, if possible, at all.

Wisdom

Similarly, regarding wisdom, I would argue that there is no better political system than democracy. I will make this case through a comparison with other political systems, as I have done so throughout this essay, with the recurrent argument of consent and legitimacy. Until the later periods of the 20th century, non-democratic systems were advocated by governments (Dahl, 1996: 44), illustrated by the hegemonic communist regimes in Eastern Europe under the Soviet Union, as well as the rise of authoritarianism in South America. They ruled on the assumption that most of their populations were unfit to participate in the governing of the state as they were incompetent (ibid., 45). As mentioned previously, governments that deprive their populations from the freedom of self-determination, which also do not depend on popular consent, are illegitimate. That is illegitimate in contrast to democratic systems of government. Through the freedom of self-determination and incorporating the input of the electorate into the authorship of decisions, democratic systems are more reliable in discovering the rightdecisions (Christiano, 2019: 82) than any feasible alternative (that being the right decisions based on a greater degree of deliberation). Through the process of greater deliberation and critical assessment, democracies can learn from their mistakes and correct them where possible. In referencing Bermeo’s discussion of democracy and dictatorship, the process of political learning in democratic systems encourages cynicism and scepticism (Bermeo, 1992: 274), allowing for governments to learn and adapt, modifying their rules in response to changing circumstances (Schmitter and Karl,1991: 15). Despite the growing distrust towards democratic institutions, as illustrated by the increasing number of Americans who have almost no confidence in Congress (Voeten, 2017: 1), as well as citizens in Central and Eastern Europe trusting the military, as an institution, to a far greater degree than Parliament, military or autocratic leadership are still not deemed as serious alternatives to democracy (Rose and Mishler, 1996: 42). This, I would argue, is largely due to the greater value of wisdom placed upon democratic systems of government in comparison to any feasible alternatives.

Indeed, the wisdom of authoritarian regimes is undermined due to the the human costs of despotic rule rivalling those of disease, famine, and war (Dahl, 1996: 46). One simply must examine the administrations of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot (ibid) for an insight into this. Additionally, studies in former authoritarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe showcase that the degree of opposition to autocratic leadership is greater than the degree of endorsement, that is 40% versus 15% (Rose and Mishler, 1996: 42). By contrast, democratic systems of government, in their superior wisdom, are essential in securing the protection of human rights, preventing the means of civil and interstate wars, and respect sovereignty in terms of the people opposed to a ruler or state bureaucracy (Lagos and Rudy, 2004: 288). This is further supported by democratic peace theory, as modern representative democracies do not wage war with one another, with all states recognising one another’s legitimacy and so maintaining peace, as identified by Fukuyama (1992: xx).

It should be noted, however, that some democratic theorists, such as elite democratic theorists, reject the idea of egalitarian democracy. This is grounded in the belief that the electorate are largely uninformed, thus high levels of participation tend to produce poor legislation for society (Christiano, 2019: 90). This is a view also expressed by Schumpeter, who argues that the management of legislation requires special aptitudes, which should be entrusted to specialists (Schumpeter, 1967: 154). Plato goes as far to say that democracy is inferior to other forms of government on the basis that it undermines the expertise required to govern a society properly (Christiano, 2019: 83). He further makes the case that those who are experts at winning elections will dominate political society (ibid). However, I would challenge this claim on the basis that electoral competition in democratic systems is a necessary evil (Schmitter and Karl, 1991: 6) as it allows the will of the people to be reflected, deriving from electoral consent.

While voters can and do prove to be bad judges of their own long-term interests (Schumpeter, 1967: 165), measures to enhance the individual’s positive freedom, such as education, can work to combat this. As populations experience rising levels of education, they tend to reject ideas associated with authoritarian regimes (Rose and Mishler, 1996: 49), demonstrating a relationship between enlightened understanding and the rejection of non-democratic wisdom and principles.

As the claim that states have to legitimacy its grounded in the equality of its citizens (Post, 2006: 29), a system of governance that deprives its populations of the authorship of decisions and the freedom of self-determination is surely illegitimate. Indeed, if the state permits greater freedoms of participation to its elites, then its citizens are treated unequally, and the government is thus illegitimate (ibid). Rawls supports the concept of plural voting, allowing the wiser members of society greater votes, only on the grounds that those with lesser votes accept this (Santas, 2007: 84). This incorporates the idea of consent, unlike Plato’s theory or systems of autocracy, and consequently if it were to be accepted by the whole of the electorate then it may be perfectly just. It is true that if systems, such as authoritarianism or autocracy, fail to provide equal access to the political process for all their citizens (unless they were, for example, to consent to Rawl’s concept of plural voting), then they are classified as illegitimate (Anderson and Tverdova, 2003: 91).

It is on this basis, therefore, that I argue that there is no better alternative than democracy. Despite focusing specifically on authoritarianautocratic regimes, this can be expanded to include both monarchies and aristocracies, and any other form of government that does not represent the will of the people through the process of self-determination. Not only do democratic systems ensure the greater security of human rights and personal freedoms via their wisdom and principles, but they also incorporate the will of the people, thereby obtaining their consent. This, as argued throughout, gives democracy a greater claim to legitimacy than any feasible alternative to date, marking it as the best form of political system.

Conclusion

This essay has argued that there is no better political system than democracy, with specific reference to anarchism, autocracy, authoritarianism, and monarchy. These political systems have been compared and evaluated under the themes of freedom, equality, wisdom, and consent. The underlying argument throughout this essay is democracy’s greater claim to legitimacy than any feasible alternative, largely derived from the consent of the people. Indeed, the etymological meaning of the word democracy is the rule of the people. While this is a rather simplistic evaluation of what defines democracy, the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government summarises the basic democratic idea (Crawford, 2000: 102). It is the consent of the people, reflecting their will, that gives democratic authority its greater claims to legitimacy; indeed, it is the only legitimate basis for political authority (During, 2012: 3). As I have argued, it is this greater claim to legitimacy that means there is no better political system than democracy.

Democratic based system originates from a Greek word ‘demokratia’. In Greek, ‘demos’ signifies individuals and ‘kratia’ signifies rule. In this way, Democratic based system actually implies individuals’ standard. The greatest prudence of Democracy is that it is government by the general population for the general population. The administration speaks to the perspectives of the general population who choose them and can toss them out if the legislature does things that the general populations don’t care for. Not at all like different types of government majority rules system is about the little man, everybody as opposed to the tip top that are frequently detached from how every other person experience their lives.

Initially, popular government is seemingly the best type of government regarding ensuring the rights and opportunities of the greater part. In the more established popular governments, America, France and Britain, the tallying station liberated society from the intensity of the government and nobility, in ‘rights-setting demonstrations of epochal significance. In the twentieth Century, fair developments and thoughts crushed Europe’s frontier domains, liberating several millions from misuse. In India for instance, about two centuries of British standard was upset: where outfitted uprisings had fizzled, the dialect of harmony and majority rules system offered an answer. In ongoing decades, numerous abusive fascisms have been toppled by vote based system; in the Eastern coalition, Popular Fronts evacuated ruthless routines, for example, Ceausescu’s in Romania, and the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings created a bunch of new just states..

Churchill said ‘Majority rules system is the most noticeably bad type of government, aside from each one of those different structures that have been attempted now and again.’ Essentially that vote based system has numerous defects and issues however all the others have more issues. Presently dictator nations, for example, China are possibly testing this suspicion by demonstrating that tyrant routines are better at making monetary development.

The most made and most excessive countries are all in all greater part rule governments. While they may well have been developing their prevalent governments in the midst of their fundamental industrialization larger part rule government and the open door it brings is continuously imperative for money related advancement once the country has moved to being commonly penniless upon organizations instead of gathering or basic resource maltreatment for monetary improvement. At the point when this happens then creativity winds up basic and the open doors related with famous government are relied upon to develop this imaginativeness that is required for undertakings, for instance, information advancement, inventive articulations, inventive work thus forth.Well in times where we examine what is less abhorrent, vote based system is ideal. Almost certainly it has various blemishes, and the essential, in my view, is that in popular government we tally heads not shrewdness!! A voter ought to have certain characteristics previously being qualified as a voter.

For example, he should be a college graduate. Individuals with information and genuine comprehension of issues can take preferred choice over the individuals who are uneducated. The standard of grown-up establishment, on which a large portion of the vote based systems are based, isn’t right. Aggregate intelligence of the scholarly individuals is superior to the befuddled, offbeat and intense choice of the many. Since the finish of the chilly war, majority rule government’s situation as the world’s prevailing political belief system has appeared to be unassailable, and today the worldwide number of vote based governments is at a record-breaking high.

Numerous in the West hail another time of opportunity, and an agreement has framed that majority rules system has won the clash of thoughts. Notwithstanding, this accord is progressively delicate: Brexit and the race of Donald Trump have apparently uncovered vote based system’s clamorous nature, and some contend that ‘individual’s control’ is basically oppression of the dominant part. China’s domination, state commentators of majority rule government, demonstrates the unrivaled productivity and arranging of an imperious government. Majority rule government is unquestionably defective, however is there a superior framework? Or on the other hand is popular government the most exceedingly bad type of government?

Most would not hesitate to answer affirmatively. But it is in the mind of many that an authoritarian state could take better measures to allow order and development. Pinochet once said: “sacrificing human rights and democracy would sometimes allow strengthening the economic and institutional stability of a country”. If we take into account that many countries such as China and Vietnam have achieved high economic and social growth in recent decades behind democratic systems, we could easily conclude that democracy is not the only system that allows human development, as opposed to what was thought at the end of the twentieth century.

And why do we believe the lie that universal suffrage automatically brings greater human development? Universal suffrage always ignored that behind each vote there would be different levels of knowledge and understanding of the State and its policies, and that the least educated would be the most manipulable.

Unfortunately, we see that the vast majority of citizens are politically malleable, making democracy easy target of populism. The problem is that the latter are controlled directly or indirectly by the large financial and business groups. All this panorama worsens if we take into account that the same leaders can also manage the media through the state advertising guideline. In other words, money controls both politicians and the media, and these in turn influence the majority of citizens; also dominating democracy, which is governed by majorities.

Does it matter that the people choose or decide? Without realising it, we have been calling democracy something that is not. Representativeness does not mean democracy, since choosing is not the same as deciding. We live within representative governments, which means that we choose those who later decide for us, without us having the last word. We elect our representatives, but do we have an impact on what they decide during their terms of office? In The Social Contract, Rousseau claimed that a rule could only be law if the people, not its representatives, decided it.

But then, what would we call a political system that places power into no more than a dozen hands, where the people do not decide and the interests of the majorities are dominated by economic power? We call this democracy? Is it not better described as autocracy? In this way, how can we know if democracy is the best political system if we do not really know it?