I have often wondered if democracy has ever been a very successful concept. Well it is certainly a great concept, much better than a totalitarian regime for sure, but my question is more about whether democracy has been able to evolve beyond simply enfranchising the masses to something closer to a system where an elected Government is really a Government "of the people, by the people, for the people". In addition we must not forget that this Government is also expected to be reasonable so that democracy does not lead to the "tyranny of the majority".
Aristotle's view of democracy was based on freedom and justice, which is reflected in his views:
"...one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign."
Today different forms of democratic frameworks exist in many countries of the world, at least most pretend to have one in place. But have we fulfilled either of the major objectives of democracy? Have we been able to prevent "tyranny of the majority" or make the poor "more powerful than the rich"?
First of all my opinion is that in a democratic framework, "tyranny of the majority" is inevitable. In a democracy every party has a manifesto or ideals and priorities, and people expected to vote based on these issues. The minority by definition are those who did not agree with the ideals of the elected party, and therefore it is inevitable that the aspirations of the minorities will not be met.
Secondly we have not seen much instance of the 'poor' enjoying more power than the 'rich', even Communists also couldn't bring that to happen.
Thirdly I think democracy is a futile exercise unless people are able to make their choices judiciously, but for which they need to be educated and be substantially informed about the realities and be able to think through the possible consequences before making their choice. An average person is simply not capable of doing that; it has been proved time and again by the wrong choices that people have made, and sometimes they even make choices that go against their self interest without realizing it. In other words I do not think that a utopian concept like democracy can ever be in the safe hands of ignoramuses (which unfortunately includes not only a huge illiterate population but also many so-called educated ones). The problem with democracy is that we assume that all human beings are equal -an idea that sounds good but is simply untrue in real life- I will not talk much about that here. Human beings are never born equal in terms of their background, never get equal opportunities, and are never equal in their tastes, qualities, talents and merits. Therefore I opine that Democracy is a good, but a flawed concept and it is surely not a panacea for all social problems. Majority doesn't mean right necessarily, if we were to decide everything by some democratic methods then probably we would still be believing that the sun revolves around the earth.
Aristotle's view of democracy was based on freedom and justice, which is reflected in his views:
"...one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign."
Today different forms of democratic frameworks exist in many countries of the world, at least most pretend to have one in place. But have we fulfilled either of the major objectives of democracy? Have we been able to prevent "tyranny of the majority" or make the poor "more powerful than the rich"?
First of all my opinion is that in a democratic framework, "tyranny of the majority" is inevitable. In a democracy every party has a manifesto or ideals and priorities, and people expected to vote based on these issues. The minority by definition are those who did not agree with the ideals of the elected party, and therefore it is inevitable that the aspirations of the minorities will not be met.
Secondly we have not seen much instance of the 'poor' enjoying more power than the 'rich', even Communists also couldn't bring that to happen.
Thirdly I think democracy is a futile exercise unless people are able to make their choices judiciously, but for which they need to be educated and be substantially informed about the realities and be able to think through the possible consequences before making their choice. An average person is simply not capable of doing that; it has been proved time and again by the wrong choices that people have made, and sometimes they even make choices that go against their self interest without realizing it. In other words I do not think that a utopian concept like democracy can ever be in the safe hands of ignoramuses (which unfortunately includes not only a huge illiterate population but also many so-called educated ones). The problem with democracy is that we assume that all human beings are equal -an idea that sounds good but is simply untrue in real life- I will not talk much about that here. Human beings are never born equal in terms of their background, never get equal opportunities, and are never equal in their tastes, qualities, talents and merits. Therefore I opine that Democracy is a good, but a flawed concept and it is surely not a panacea for all social problems. Majority doesn't mean right necessarily, if we were to decide everything by some democratic methods then probably we would still be believing that the sun revolves around the earth.
3 comments:
'...and therefore it is inevitable that the aspirations of the minorities will not be met.' - Only if the majority votes as a bloc... They usually don't, that's why we have coalition politics. More wiggle room for minorities there.
'...Therefore I opine that Democracy is a good, but a flawed concept and it is surely not a panacea for all social problems.' - Is there a better alternative?
@Marvin- The question is who form the 'majority' and who form the 'minority', the way I define it here is that majority constitute of those whose candidate got elected, the minority are those whose candidate lost. In other words I am defining 'majority' and 'minority' on the basis of the outcome of the election. And then obviously the people whose ideology were close to the guy who lost are the ones whose aspirations will not be fulfilled. I am not using these terms in the usual sense as I think they have no meaning in reality precisely because of coalition politics. For example if BJP wins, it does not mean that it is a win for the 'majority' Hindus, what it really means that Hindu fanatics won, and therefore I myself should be counted as a 'minority' in spite of being a Hindu since I would have supported a less bigoted party.
For the second point you mention, well I am not a philosopher or a political expert, and I won't pretend to be so. However my belief is that the concept that Socrates and Plato believed in- the Philosopher King- would probably be the best solution. But unfortunately I do not know if we ever had or can ever have such a great mind as a ruler. At the very least we should put some restriction regarding who all can be nominated as a candidate based on their education and expertise; an educated candidate should potentially be better than an illiterate or semi-literate goon.
I meant 'majority' and 'minority' in the same way that you did. :)
More than a minimum education requirement, at least we should keep criminals out.
Post a Comment