Category: Democracy

Democracy is a system of government in which citizens have the power to elect their government’s representatives. Decisions on who is considered a member of the people and how power is shared or delegated by the people have evolved over time and at various rates in different countries, but they have gradually expanded to include more and more people in all countries.

The concept of democracy has changed significantly over time, and the two most common forms of democracy today are direct and representative. In a direct democracy, citizens debate and vote on legislation directly. In a representative democracy, such as parliamentary or presidential democracy, citizens elect representatives to deliberate and vote on legislation.

According to Larry Diamond, an American political scientist, democracy consists of four main elements: a political mechanism for selecting and replacing the government through free and fair elections; active citizen engagement in politics and public life; defense of all citizens’ human rights; and the rule of law, in which rules and procedures apply fairly to all citizens.

Many people support democracy because they believe it improves people’s character. Many have observed, as Mill and Rousseau did, that democracy encourages people to speak up for themselves rather than other forms of government because collective decisions taken under democracy are more based on the will of the people than those made under monarchy or aristocracy.

Furthermore, since it matters whether people think carefully and rationally or not, democracy appears to allow people to think carefully and rationally more than other forms of law. Finally, others contend that democracy appears to improve citizens’ moral qualities.

In this essay, the instrumental arguments against democracy are as follows, Plato argues that democracy is inferior to different types of monarchy, aristocracy, and even oligarchy because democracy erodes the skills required for properly governed societies. He claims that in a democracy, those who are skilled at winning elections and nothing else can inevitably take control of democratic politics. For Hobbes, democracy is inferior to monarchy because it promotes destabilizing dissension among subjects. Individual people and even lawmakers, in his opinion, are unlikely to feel responsible for the quality of legislation because no one individual has a direct impact on decision-making outcomes. According to Hobbes, democracy has negative consequences for subjects and politicians, as well as the consistency of public decision-making outcomes.

There are also claims that, in addition to the instrumental principles mentioned above, certain types of decision-making are morally desirable regardless of the consequences. In the context of justice and whether or not it can be achieved, i believe justice can be achieved because the words ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’ are often interchanged. Justice, in its broadest sense, is conduct that complies with the requirements of some statute. Others conclude that justice consists of universally applicable laws that arise from some kind of consensus. Justice is fairness in a narrower context. For problems of social justice, the ideals of justice and fairness may be thought of as ‘fair play’ laws. These standards, whether they are based on universal rules or ones that are more context-specific, govern how different forms of justice are carried out. For example, distributive justice principles decide what constitutes a ‘fair share’ of a particular good, while retributive or restorative justice principles form our reaction to behavior that violates a society’s ‘fair play’ laws. Social justice necessitates both the fairness of the laws and the compliance of those who follow them.

In addition, each of the justice and fairness concepts can be implemented in a number of situations. The concept of desert, for example, can be applied not only to the distribution of resources, but also to the distribution of costs and punishments. Organizations and communities that successfully apply justice ideals, on the other hand, tend to be more stable, and their members feel happy and safe.

Justice, in its broadest sense, is conduct that complies with the requirements of some statute. Others conclude that justice consists of universally applicable laws that arise from some kind of consensus. Justice is fairness in a narrower context. It is behavior that is considerate of others’ legitimate interests, property, and protection. For problems of social justice, the ideals of justice and fairness may be thought of as ‘fair play’ laws. These standards, whether they are based on universal rules or ones that are more context-specific, govern how different forms of justice are carried out. Principles of distributive justice, for example, determine what constitutes a ‘fair share’ of a particular good, whereas principles of retributive or restorative justice shape our response to behavior that violates a society’s ‘fair play’ rules.Moreover, Social justice necessitates both fair rules and people who follow them. Each of the justice and fairness concepts can be implemented in a number of situations. The concept of desert, for example, can be applied not only to the distribution of resources, but also to the distribution of costs and punishments. Organizations and communities that successfully apply justice ideals, on the other hand, tend to be more stable, and their members feel happy and safe.

Currently, Western democracies face a number of complex, sometimes interconnected challenges that affect citizenship education, teaching and learning, among which i would like to highlight the following. Increasing (youth) unemployment and social inequality are common in many countries, as well as declining levels of political faith, diminished trust in political elites and institutions, and lower citizen satisfaction with government efficiency. Citizenship has traditionally been thought of as a legitimate political status. Citizenship, on the other hand, has recently taken on a much broader definition, referring not just to the political realm but also to daily social and cultural life. However, in recent years, there have been increasing critiques of both educational systems and the sense of citizenship education’s ‘active citizens’ support for democracy. A good example of that would be The Patriot Act which was passed in 2001 to strengthen law enforcement’s ability to identify and prevent terrorism in the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and it took effect less than two months later.

Therefore I conclude my essay by providing the evidence and background for critical consideration and rational evaluation of the USA PATRIOT Act’s desirability. The official name of the act is USA-PATRIOT, which stands for ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Needed to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.’ By January 30, 2003, the USA PATRIOT Act authorized the development of an entirely new electronic monitoring and tracking system capable of monitoring and tracking any foreign studentscholar entering the United States for programs admitting international studentsscholars. Lookups of records it broadens the government’s right to examine third-party data on an individual’s activities. Secret inquiries are conducted. Searches for information. ‘Trap and trace’ searches are a type of search. By August 1st 2003, a complete accounting of all existing students in the United States was to be completed.The US government set a deadline of January 30, 2003 for the complete implementation of SEVIS in the USA PATRIOT Act, without consulting universities or other agencies.

The definition of democracy concentrates on the debates among proponents of deliberative, substantive, and procedural justice. Procedural democrats generally emphasize institutions and practices characterized by a democratic regime (Dahl, 1-3). Deliberative democrats make decisions showing that the most appropriate procedures can be transformed into a proper form of democracy (Dahl, 2-5). Substantive democracy explains the procedures as necessary but not adequate to bring about democratic results (Miller, 201-210). Modern political democracy is therefore defined as a system of governance where the leaders are held responsible for their actions in the public domain by citizens (Szolucha, 18-20). The citizen acts indirectly through the participation of their elected representatives; thus, the supreme authority is vested in the people, exercised directly by them or by their elected delegates under a free electoral system (Szolucha, 20).

A system or a regime of governance is an organization of patterns confining the methods of access to the principal public office with the characteristics of the participants excluded or admitted from such access (Miller, 207-218). The realm entails making the collective choices and norms that unite the society backed by state compulsion. In the democratic form of governance, citizens are the most distinctive elements; in other words, all the regimes have public domain and leaders, but only to the extent to which they are democratic the citizens. Standard courses of action are taken after citizens have weighed the demerits and merits and listen to the alternatives of such activities and decisions. The fundamental feature of democracy is, therefore, cooperation (Miller, 215-220). Participants who primarily include the citizens, through their representative, voluntarily make collective decisions that unite the republic as a whole (Schmitter & Terry, 75). They cooperate and collaborate through associations, parties, and even movements to elect candidates, select petition authorities, and also to influence policies. Furthermore, democracy’s freedom should also encourage citizens to discover their basic needs, deliberate among themselves, and to resolve their dispute and disagreements without relying on some supreme central authority (Schmitter & Terry, 78-80). The representatives, whether elected directly or indirectly, usually do most of the real work in a modern democracy; these representatives mostly constitute professional politicians oriented to their careers (Schmitter & Terry, 80-82).

Since the representatives are elected by citizens, in turn, the final decision making power rest with those elected by the people; this means the people are the Supreme in a democratic form of governance and that all the voices count. Thus, democracy can be deemed to be the will of people and the people’s sovereignty (Szolucha, 20).

In a real democracy, a representative or the state is always elected by the majority vote. All the citizens are equally considered to have equal power in terms of choosing a representative or the government as a whole; in other words, one man one vote as in most of the states thus, all voices eventually count (Miller, 220-226). However, the fundamental rights are restricted to a minimum form and not like a total free democratic state. Ideal democracy is similar to real democracy in terms of equal power of electing the government. However, in an ideal democracy, all citizens are provided with total fundamental rights and liberty concerning the law of the country (Dahl, 5-10).

The minimum democracy infers that a system or a regime should have a least a universal, competitive, and fair elections, mostly with more than one source of information and more than one political party (Miller, 226). Therefore existing rights, decision-making processes, and democratic institutions should not be constrained by external powers or non-elected elites. The main objectives of an ideal form of democracy are, therefore, freedom and equality.

For an ideal democracy to be depicted as the will of the people, it should involve a degree of uncertainty about who is to be elected and what policies they will pursue (Miller, 226-227). The constitution guarantees rights to property, expression, privacy, and other rights; however, the most effective boundaries are created by competition among the interested groups and cooperation within civil society (Miller, 228). Therefore these boundaries or limitations ensure that not just any participant can get into the competition and raise any issues that only, please. Again there are previously constitutional rules that must be adhered to or observed (Schmitter & Terry, 85). Again not just any policy is adopted since there are some specific conditions and regulations by the constitution; the country constitution, therefore, provides governance-related institutions such as the judiciary and the civil service (Miller, 226).

Also, an ideal democracy generally requires the existence and free exercise of certain primary groups or individual rights. Some of these fundamental rights include the right to life, liberty, due process of law, equality, non-discrimination, judicial access, and freedom of assembly and expression (Dahl, 7). These fundamental rights, in turn, give rise to other substantive rights; however, all the substantive rights are dependent on their fair and effective implementation on procedural fairness (Schmitter & Terry, 86).

These texts (The Democracy Sourcebook, What is Democracy) have reinforced my understanding of democracy and made me acknowledge that democracy is the best form of governance. I have remarked that good governance has various attributes; however, citizen participation contributes to good governance in many ways and at different levels. Citizen participation is often not spontaneous but comes through the effective mobilization of all citizens of sound mind. More importantly, it provides the citizenry with the appropriate information or knowledge. It uses message and communication strategies that are well attuned to the cognitive capacities of the target populations (Szolucha, 20). By providing information and expertise in a very understandable manner, the citizenry will have the requisite tools for engagement. Thus the citizen will be in a better position to contribute to policy debate, decision making, and action, monitoring, and feedback devoid of fear, intimidation, and the rest of it that tends to make people sit on the fence. The political elite have to liberate the energies of all its human resources for real-time citizen participation.

I have also realized from the texts that in very dense environments, adequate mobilization of the citizenry can come through genuine/committed political, administrative, judiciary, and fiscal decentralization. This mobilization can be possible as from the center to the lowest level possible with well-educated and dedicated human resources in leadership positions and where there is a robust regular feedback mechanism both vertically and horizontally. In general, to allow involvement of citizens, it is necessary to adapt the processes majorly on the legislative level, because the state should allow the citizens to make contributions on the current changes, creating new and advancement of the policies. It also ensures that citizens can apply only society’s relevant policies. The state needs a threshold since the policy is suitable for a larger group of citizens and not only for a small consortium from enterprises. On the other hand, the barrier should not be too high because it must be possible for engaged citizens to apply a new policy; however, one has to keep in mind that not the whole society will participate in the policymaking.

Is Dewey’s (1916) Democracy and Education still relevant in context with the current National curriculum?’ (Hopkins 2018) This is the question that Hopkins (2018) asks throughout this article. Hopkins is a unit leader in the philosophy of education at the University of Bedfordshire, and his argument progresses by looking at three main themes. Firstly, how Dewey’s (1916) publication applies to current issues within Primary and Secondary schools. Secondly, if Dewey’s (1916) ideas connect to fundamental British values (FBV) and how pupil voice can feature within this. Finally, the insights Dewey’s (1916) work has provided on both the academic and vocational divide.

In this critique we will unpick Hopkins’s (2018) ideas around the relevance of ‘Dewey’s democracy and education’ (Dewey 1916) and its bearing today with particular reference to FBV, also touching on pupil voice. Certainly, Hopkins’s (2018) article does appear to claim that Dewey’s (1916) ideas on democracy and pupil voice are extremely relevant one hundred years on, however, he looks at how democracy fits into the national curriculum and it could be argued that his portrayal of this is fairly one-sided with little reference to counter opinion. Another key factor is that even though this article is less than two years old, a huge amount of change has occurred within the education sector during this time which challenges just how relevant Hopkins’s (2018) paper is, over and above the relevance of Dewey (1916).

Hopkins (2018) leads with Dewey’s (1916) argument that an education system can’t be controlled by the state because a state-controlled education addresses what is needed for the nation but not for the individuals within it. Certainly, this is an interesting point and historically does carry credence, however, since the publication of this journal, we have seen the implementation of the new Ofsted framework which in a recent speech (21 Sept 2018) Ofsted’s Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman stated that Ofsted recognizes the importance of schools’ autonomy to choose their curriculum approaches. Spielmans’ (2018) words challenge Dewey’s (1916) argument as whilst an education framework is being provided, schools and practitioners are now being encouraged to adapt this to best suit their school setting and children.

Hopkins (2018) links Dewey’s (1916) issues with state-controlled education to the introduction of Fundamental British Values and PREVENT within the National Curriculum in 2014. Hopkins (2018) argues that the FBV curriculum was created with limited consultation into what it means to be British, again relating to the motivation of the state providing the basis of this education (Dewey 1916). But what Hopkins (2018) does not appear to be mindful of is that the framework provides the ability for every child to receive the same basic educational entitlement, along with a structure that allows differentiative learning for all pupils (Lewis 2002). Add to this the evidence that has shown a lack of framework can have negative results such as students acquiring misconceptions, (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark 2006) then it could be argued that the Government providing the framework for what should be taught also limits opportunity for learners receiving inappropriate education and possibly more biased opinion of highly sensitive subjects.

Hopkins (2018) does not consider the benefits of a framework at any point but instead references the fact that Dewey (1916) would be skeptical of the introduction of SBV in light of who the values are for – nation or individual. The May 2019 edition of Ofsted The Education Inspection Framework, discusses that FBV prepares learners for life in modern Britain in a variety of ways including how to contribute to society, understand diversity, and draw on the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life. If we again look at the changes to the Ofsted framework it could be argued that FBV provides a framework that schools and education practitioners use to encourage Dewey’s (1916) ‘intelligent action’ by inspiring people to have a personal interest in the subject matter and respect the viewpoint of others along with creating opportunities for social involvement.

Hopkins (2018) did not have this context when he wrote his journal in March 2018 as the new Ofsted guidelines were not created till later that year however he could have referenced the 2013 National Curriculum in England Framework which states that as part of the curriculum, every state-funded school must prepare pupils for opportunities, responsibilities, and experiences of later life. Based on the evidence we now have from Ofsted (2018) and The National Curriculum (2013) we could now challenge the relevance of Hopkins’s (2018) theory that Dewey (1916) would be skeptical of the FBV curriculum and offer a counter-argument that FBV is a vehicle for ‘Intelligent action’. Expanding this point further, Garratt (2000) discusses the importance of understanding and accepting that children enter school with contrasting sets of cultural and gendered expectations. Garratt (2000) states that through carefully structured activities and meaningful dialogue, children can learn how different cultures work and how they contribute to their society. A much more balanced argument from Hopkins (2018) may have considered that the FBV curriculum not only allows for intelligent action but also creates the opportunity for more democracy within the school environment with teachers actively encouraging pupil voice and facilitating meaningful discussions on culture and society.

Hopkins (2018) himself likened pupil voice to Dewey’s (1916) opinion of the classroom as a place where people develop and construct knowledge so if FBV does create an opportunity for pupil’s voice then this provides another contradiction to Hopkins’s (2018) article. When considering that FBV can provide an opportunity for pupil voice it is then interesting to look at Pike (2007) as he discusses that how we deliver curriculum is in fact down to pedagogy and this is where the element of democracy can be included. Reflecting on Hopkins (2018) and Pike’s (2007) ideas around the implementation of FBV, one could construe that the FBV framework provides a structure to work within, not limited to what must be taught, but guidelines that are open to interpretation, and adaptable in terms of pedagogy and setting. Furthermore, if we teach British Values in this way it becomes less about what is needed to be taught but demonstrating the key characteristics required for living and contributing to society (Pike 2007). This line of thought links directly to encouraging and endorsing the Pupil voice as a key tool in delivering such elements of the curriculum. After critiquing the key points within Hopkins’s (2018) article, a fair conclusion would be that many of Dewey’s (1916) ideas and beliefs are still relevant however the interpretation of them given by Hopkins (2018) about democracy within the national curriculum and FBV are not.

The main weakness of Hopkins’s (2018) article is the failure to address that the 2013 National Curriculum and more recently 2018 Ofsted guidelines, both allow education professionals the ability to consider social and cultural influences relevant to the individuals within their local environment. This also allows the pedagogy to be adopted by the teachers to include more democracy and pupil voice, especially in subject areas such as FBV. There are many questions raised by this critique and certainly, areas of further research and reflection would lead to analysis of types of pedagogy within different areas of the National Curriculum and how professionals can learn, adapt, and improve their teaching within this framework.

In the study of comparative politics, many political theorists such as Andrew Hindmoor, Mark Petracca, and Jon Elson explain political occurrences such as war, voting methods, and the economy through the understanding of Rational Choice Theory. Rational Choice Theory is a prominent theory in the study of Politics and Economics. It posits that individuals, institutions, and societies construct purposive, goal-seeking choices based on their interests and preferences, which are rational (Hindmoor, 2006). For many people, one aspect of being part of a democratic society is the ability to take part in the political system. This can be done in several ways: by voting in an election, participating in public discussion-based meetings, serving jury duty, or simply protesting for a cause. These civic duty activities are known as political participation. Political participation is a crucial centerpiece within a democratic society. Through this, individuals participate in the political process by sharing their opinions on an issue or making their concerns and beliefs known. These are actions taken by individuals and political groups to influence government policy and the outcome of a political issue. However, applying the rational choice theory to the understanding of political action with the assumption that people are rational actors in political engagement is erroneous. This brings into question: are we rational actors when it comes to politics? This essay will critique the rational choice theory and argue that individuals are not entirely rational but rational to a certain extent in pursuing their objectives. Because individuals act in their self-interest, this can ultimately result in an unrepresentative flawed system of government that only represents a minority group of individuals, leading to an illegitimate government. Although individuals are not fully rational actors in politics, they are boundedly rational because they are goal-oriented. However, their human intellectual ability and emotional manner, at times, fail in making important decisions because they cannot handle multiple problems at once. They do not fully maximize their utility but only strive to satisfy their goals and what makes them content. Lastly, this paper argues that people are uninformed due to a disadvantage they hold within a democratic society.

Individuals do not always select the best action to achieve the overall goal that is beneficial for the common good but instead, they make irrational decisions based on their interests. We all have different interests, beliefs, and needs, and the same applies when we make our political decisions. The study of how our self-interest is relative to our decision-making by Andrew Hindmoor (2006) and Amartya K. Sen (1977) in the fields of economics and politics explains how we participate in politics. The Rational Choice Theory is used by economists and political theorists to explain the notion that individuals exercise rational thinking before making any decisions. Rational choice is an approach of positive analysis that attempts to tell us something about how the world functions and how individuals act within it. It uses the assumptions of self-interest and rationality of people to construct models of political processes or events. It states that individuals make purposive and goal-oriented decisions based on their beliefs and preferences, which are seen as rational. For that reason, individual actors are capable of making decisions in all case scenarios. This theory assumes that people take into consideration all possible costs and benefits of their options before making a decision. However, just because it is assumed that individuals are capable of making rational decisions, not all decisions made are fully thought-out and rational. Political action is not entirely rational because people only act in their self-interest and not for the common good of society, which leads to bad policies and decisions. The role of self-interest in elected officials and voters affects the formulation of public policies. For instance, when a voter feels strongly about a particular cause, they will use their voice to speak their interest and vote to elect a candidate that would meet their views. Because voters want their interests to be implemented in policies, they will exercise their political rights. The same goes for political organizations and elected officials. Political candidates and organizations want to hold a government position; therefore, they will tend to the voters and align with policies that a substantial number of voters appeal to in an attempt to get elected. However, this can lead to corruption and the exploitation of power that will result in bad policies and an unrepresentative government, such as governments influenced by self-interested corporations and political interest groups. Although interest groups are important for a democratic society, large interest groups can pose challenges to the government and society. Some powerful interest groups can use their financial resources and power to corrupt the government to ensure that policymakers remain in favor of their interests. Because elected officials are keen on getting elected, they are more likely to help side with larger interest groups and tend to their needs to get re-elected than the smaller groups. This can lead to pluralism that will only work in favor of the minority groups and not the general public, which shows to be unrepresentative. Larger interest groups and elected officials are not entirely rational but rational to a certain extent about what is beneficial to their cause rather than the cause for the common good. They make choices based on maximizing their utility rather than for the common good of society. Therefore, individuals are not fully rational because they make irrational decisions based on their desires and interests. Individuals focus on a limited amount of aspects that they believe are more essential to them than others. People are not thorough decision-makers; rather, they make decisions based on limited facts, and they do not consider the full range of consequences or benefits that a particular decision has on others.

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.