I have tried to present the ideals in which democracy is defended under, why it is defended and I have also used quotes to strengthen my arguments from selected readings on democracy. I have also included possible refutations against democracy as an ideal. In the end I wrapped the conclusion in what is my own opinion. And how I feel about the matter.
----------------------------
“I want to go back to believing in everything, but I cannot. I believe what I am told, I go with what is the norm nowadays, I humble my diversity and I conform”. That is the voice of many, in near and far away societies and that is what by many is considered to be the unfairness of democracy. But I? I think there is a driving force behind the body that is the democracy, and that driving force is the majority of the people. I also believe that the majority being human -adopting democratic ruling- may be in the wrong, but must be doing something right. In almost everything in life you will never get complete consent of everybody, there will always be somebody who disagrees. Ofcourse you could go on to engineer consensus from the subjects, as do many states, but that would always backfire in some way. In This paper I will be raising the question of whether or not Democracy could be an ideal way of ruling or no. If it were to be the ideal the way, how are we supposed to make it more accepted even to the people that do not support it? To support my arguments I will be using the following texts: “Is Democracy special?” by Brian Barry, and “Considerations on Representative Government” By John Stuart Mill.
Some maintain that democratic procedures are intrinsically better than the alternatives since they allow people to share equally in the political decisions which shape their lives.(Mills, 89). Democracy is a system whereby a government power comes from the majority of people through a process best known as elections. Mills not only supports democracy but he in turn also gives justifications as to why it is better. Through the electoral process, every single individual gets the opportunity to voice their opinions, in that every one participates in the elections by voting. In that way the opinions of everybody are taken into consideration. We can look upon this as a way the government allows its citizens a certain measurement of power. Now the counterargument would be that even though they are allowed to vote, their votes are still excluded when the only vote taken into consideration is the one with the support of the majority of the people. But that isn’t true, that is why in democratic systems, every 4 years or so the main body(or foundations) of the previously elected government changes. Giving chance for different results every time around. So in a sense we can say that the combination of the majority is constantly changing with the passage of time. People supporting certain views this year may not be supporting it the next.
Democracy promotes equality and understanding, and it is mainly for the good of the people. It promotes the general welfare and encourages citizens to develop their intellectual and moral capacities.(Mills 89-90). By encouraging citizens no matter their opinions to vote for what they believe in no matter the results, that in itself is encouraging them to start thinking of why they would want to support a certain form of government and not the other. By starting to think of the pros and cons of any situation and of the choices they will be making, this process of thinking gets them to ask questions; when asking questions they hopefully will find the answers that would allow them to make the right decisions according to their situations. There is no difficulty in showing that the ideally best form of government is that in which the sovereignty, or supreme controlling power in the last resort, is vested in the entire aggregate of the community: every citizen not only having a voice in the exercise of that ultimate sovereignty, but being, at least occasionally, called on to take an actual part in the government, by the personal discharge of some public function, local or general.( Mills 91-92). Hence the electoral process.
Then again we go back to the fundamental question of what makes a government the ideal form of ruling? Frankly there is no ideal form of government as a generalization, but there is an ideal form for a certain time, situation and factors. What worked a hundred years ago couldn’t possibly work now with all the changes and globalization under way. The ideally best form of government, it is scarcely necessary to say, does not mean one in which is practicable or eligible in all states of civilization, but the one which, in the circumstances in which it is practicable and eligible, is attended with the greatest amount of beneficial consequences, immediate and prospective.(Mills, 92). Not only is circumstances and time frame important, but also that if a certain form of government were to be proven that it were the ideal one, that it be implemented in a manner that maximizes the benefit and efficiency of the country and its people. In the end the government is there to rule the people, but more precisely to provide a safe and agreeable country for the exercise of their daily lives.
Just because the vote of the majority is the one that takes the lead, or the one that is implemented, it in no way undermines the minority’s voice nor should it. Every single individual under a certain form of government or voting for a sort of government are in fact doing so with the best interest at heart. Best interest for them, their families and eventually their countries. It may seem they do what they can, with what they have, and hope or be sure that whatever side is taken or voice is heard, it is all for the best. The person bestirring himself with hopeful prospects to improve his circumstances is the one who feels good will towards others engaged in, or who have succeeded in, the same pursuit. (Mills, 93). There are also others who really cannot be bothered in making a decision, or who more precisely tend to agree with whatever the verdict as long as they get to have their lives. There are, no doubt, in all countries, really contented characters, who not merely do not seek, but do not desire, what they do not already possess, and these naturally bear no ill-will towards such as have apparently a more favored lot.( Mills, 93).
Democracy by taking into consideration, or involving all the masses in the process, has in some way encourages the idea of identity and individuality, more precisely freedom of speech. It is a great discouragement to an individual, and still a greater one to a class, to be left out of the constitution; to be reduced to plead from outside the door to the arbiters of their destiny, not taken into consultation within.(Mills, 94). This form of government is constantly involving everyone, and confirming a sense of belonging from the beginning. It could be a direct sense of belonging, as in we care about your opinion. And an indirect one, as in the voter thinking since they take the time to hear my voice it means that in the near future there will always be hope for my preferences to arise, or take form in my life. What is still more important than even this matter of feeling is the practical discipline which the character obtains from the occasional demand made upon the citizens to exercise, for a time and in their turn, some social function. (Mills, 95).
After having said all this, a lot of people would refute everything I have said basing it on one ideal we all seek, that being FREEDOM. For isn’t it in essence necessary for any political form of government nowadays to offer freedom of speech, life, etc… according to Barry that is the case. Thus, some degree of freedom of communication and organization is a necessary condition of the formation, expression and aggregation of political preferences. (Barry, 105). Others may refute the idea of majority and minority, saying that even if the elected representatives were indeed selected according to the majority voting, on the ground the original reason the majority chose them might not even exist. For example like trying to decide on matters concerning taxation, or pension plans or any of the latter, the elected representative can indeed arrive at a decision that is drastically different than the ones the majority wanted, so then again you are in a loop hole. There is no guarantee that elected representatives will on every issue vote in such a way that the outcome preferred by a majority of citizens will be the one chosen. (Barry, 107).
And by taking only the majority vote , they would refute, that no that isn’t taking the minority’s vote into consideration on the contrary it is to say that no matter what you say or do, any amount of people who exceed your number(i.e. number of people that support a similar cause or stance) will indeed be the ones that win, and will as there by reap the greatest of benefits and advantages. The attraction of the majority principle lies in the claim that the majority ‘naturally’ is entitled to act for the whole. (Barry, 112). No one wants to be represented by someone who opposes their views or opinions, and though we have hope of change a lot of people aren’t willing to let go of their views just so they can fit in. That could be a problem.
I support Democracy, if for no other reason than the fact that if my voice were not heard today, it will be heard tomorrow, and if not tomorrow then surely one day. Maybe soon, maybe not, it may take longer than expected, but I know that someday somehow it will be heard and taken into consideration. Who knows my voice along with many could be the driving force of change at one time, with the change of time. Then again my voice could be altered with the change of my situation and wants with time, and I may change my voice to join the one already chosen and hollered everywhere. All of this could happen with good reason. I believe in change, and I also believe that I will say what I want to say and hope to be heard democratically. Things do not have to go my way, just as long as no harm comes my way. Hundreds of able men of independent thought, who would have no chance whatever of being chosen by the majority of any existing constituency, have by their writings, or their exertions in some field of public usefulness, made themselves known and approved by a few persons in almost every district of the kingdom; and if every place could be counted for their election, they might be able to complete the number of the quota. (Barry, 101).
--------------------------------------------------
Claims and Refutes....--->
Democracy as defined by Websters dictionary the government that is formed by the people, or more precisely it is a form of government by which power is given and used by the people themselves. In this paper I will be selecting two claims ive previously come across, and supported by two papers. The first being “Is Democracy Special?” by Brian Barry, and “Considerations on Representative Government” by John Stuart Mill.
The first claim that I will discuss will be taken from Barry’s paper. The claim is that Democracy should be implemented according to the majority rule. He claims that there is a driving force behind the body that is the democracy, and that driving force are the majority of the people. Ofcourse this force constitutes individual acceptances and agreement of people in society and their mutual working together for this democracy. The flaw or fault in this argument is that it does tend to ignore the minority and it rules them out from any decision making or implementation of democracy. Even though it is well known that democracy is based on the majority ruling, we should not neglect the fact that the democracy in and of itself cannot ignore or abuse the power it has to Alienate the minorities and refuse them their rights. In a sense I believe that majorities always exist, but that their mixtures or combinations are constantly shifting with the change of time. For example if we take elections, people themselves change the combination or constituents of the majority by their votes. This is when parts of the minority are heard, and they shift to become part of the majority. For the majority, the ability of the minority to acquire their rights becomes an advantage for them. It is in the self interest of any major group to ensure the rights of the minority, since at any given moment it can become the minority and would need to be in the same position. The only worry here is the ability of the majority to oppress the minority and abuse them.
The second Claim I will discuss is what John Mills believes, that being :- That democracy’s strengths lies in its consequences. That includes it promoting the welfare of the general public, and encourages individuals of society and the community to improve themselves and develop their intellect and moralities. Democracy is precious but very fragile and vulnerable to threats. Absolute power when given into the right hands can have all the formerly mentioned outcomes, especially when dealing with democracy. But seldom does democracy have such outcomes. Unfortunately in my opinion all it seems to be doing is actually corrupting powerful individuals by means of them implementing what they want under false pretenses of being democratic. Unfortunately this occurs because the public at large is usually ignorant in matters of the state and what is going on politically on the inside. They remain without information or enlightenment on all the practices occurring in the political systems of this world. Ultimately, Democracy can only be as good as the people dealing with it choose to make it. All of this also depends on the need for social and public responsibility and the general response from people. In my opinion I think that for man to truly be democratic and honest, he/she MUST rediscover again within themselves a deeper more profound sense of responsibility towards the world and its people. This meaning a greater responsibility towards something higher than the individual himself.
All in all, I believe the ideals of democracy are to create a better harmony between the government and the society by an increase of self-discipline from the majority. What I mean by self-discipline is that, individuals are to obey the law and not protest against the ruling.
A.
