Democracy is a gift democracy essay patriotic national leaders to the citizens. The Nineteenth Century saw But this is not possible in any other type of government. When social issues arise, citizens have the right to They have both material affluence and physical strength.
Here’s your New Year gift
Essay 1, democracy essay. The former word means the people and the latter word means power. In democracy the preeminent factor is the people. There the government is run by the people and the main concern is the welfare of the people. Democracy has a great educative force, because it strives democracy essay the development of the personality of the citizens. So democracy is not only a form of government democracy essay a kind of upgraded society. These are the warp and woof of a culture which may be called democracy culture. Although democracy has a definite and set method of its own, democracy essay, it has such a strong appeal that everybody and every institution tries to go by the name of democracy, democracy essay.
The position has been nicely delineated by Carl J. Everyone is for democracy as he understands it, democracy essay. In the USA democracy means the existing scheme of things or some idealized version of it or even what the men of Philadelphia intended the constitution to be. In Britain too it means whatever one considers the government and politics of the country to be, but also more particularly what the Labour Party aspires democracy essay and has been seeking to accomplish, when it has been in power. In the USSR and communist China such American and British views are laughed at as reactionary, democracy essay.
Such democracy presupposes a classless society and can only come democracy essay capitalism has been destroyed by the dictatorship of the proletariat since the end of the Second World War, democracy essay, and especially in the period of the Cold War these classes of outlook became acute. Essay 2. It takes the form of such government democracy essay which all the adult persons gather in a public place to make laws, pass budgets and elect the executive, democracy essay. This type of government was possible in small city-states of Greece where the entire population of the city could assemble.
It is not suitable for a large state. More importantly, direct democracy might have been possible and desirable in small countries like ancient Greek and Roman city-states where population was very few and life was very simple, democracy essay. The system is not appropriate for modern large states which have a complex life. The vastness of the modern state and its huge population and, above all, the large size of the electorate will make it unworkable and even impossible on financial and administrative democracy essay. Now it is to be found in five cantons of Switzerland, democracy essay. It is also called the representative form of democracy. It is that form of government in which the people themselves do not make the laws, pass democracy essay budget and elect the executive.
In an indirect democracy the people elect their representatives and these representatives make laws, pass the budget and elect democracy essay executive. In all modern states democracies are indirect. Thus England, the USA, democracy essay, France and India have indirect democracy. Essay 3. Conditions Necessary for the Success of Democracy: Democracy in the world is plagued by several maladies. As a cure, different philosophers have suggested different needs which include the reform of the electoral rolls, introduction of referendum, initiative and recall and increased cooperation of the people in the public affairs and democracy essay capacity of the citizens, democracy essay.
But consensus among the political philosophers is that the following are the basic needs for the success of democracy:. A proper education is a must for the success of democracy. The sentinel of democracy is an educated and enlightened public opinion. Wide dissemination of knowledge and universalization of education is the pillar of democracy. Minus education, democracy will degenerate into mobocracy. Speaking at democracy essay Harvard University inMr. Rajiv Gandhi asserted that in spite of widespread illiteracy, democracy essay, predominantly among the rural people, India could still be a democracy.
He seemed to suggest that as far as democratic thoughts and exercise of wisdom, democratic rights and norms are concerned, common sense is more important than literacy. A democracy without wisdom is a potential anarchy, democracy essay. It has no power of criticism and is at the mercy of any demagogue and of any dictator. Eternal vigilance is not the price of liberty atone. It is a price of democracy too. It makes demand on ordinary citizens to take part. But if they leave it to someone democracy essay, sooner or later they may fall under a dictatorship and that will be fatal.
Alertness on the part of the citizens is another big foundation of democracy. Without it, democracy will be usurped by the demagogues. The Germans lost their democracy during the time of Adolf Hitler for want of constant vigil on the rights of the people of Germany. Hitler democracy essay raised the dream of democracy before the people only to crush it. Unfortunately, for the want of alertness on the part of the people they could be so easily played into the hands of a democracy essay dictator, democracy essay.
This should be an eye-opener for all right thinking democrats. Let us have a look into Bangladesh. That country established democracy in But soon the Bangladesh army liquidated the freedom-loving Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and captured power. Once again the wily politicians met with the same fate and put the country under military dictatorship. This had been possible because there was no political awareness among the general people of Bangladesh. What happened in Pakistan and Bangladesh will not take place in England or the USA because there the people are politically conscious. This political vigilance is a must in a democracy. Democracy functions effectively if there is a hierarchy of powers from the centre to the village unit.
This kind of elaborate system of local self-government will train the people in the art and science of the government. Thus more power should be decentralised into the Panchayats and civic bodies, democracy essay. This type of democratisation of the institutions will minimise the scope of anybody to misuse the mechanism of the government, democracy essay. Perhaps there is no better suggestion on it than that given by Dr K. A municipality gives the necessary experience in administration and tests in the individual members as to whether they would really serve the people or serve themselves. In a democracy the maximum participation of the citizenry is assured. There is a corresponding civic responsibility from the side of the citizens.
The citizens should have high sense of moral rectitude. If the citizens idle away their responsibility there is an end to democracy. In the absence of selfless devotion to the public good, democracy is maimed. Democracy is indeed a difficult government, because it presupposes civic capacity on the part of the citizens. Democracy is a government of the majority. What should be the attitude of the majority towards the minority? It should be one of sympathy and tolerance. A religious and linguistic majority must not disrespect the similar sentiments of the minority. The majority must hear the view-point of the other people.
We shut the doors of reasons when we refuse to listen to our opponents, or having listened, make fun of them. If intolerance becomes a habit we run the risk of missing the truth. There is no place of violence in a democratic set-up, democracy essay. Tolerance is necessary for the success of democracy. But here is one thing the democrat cannot tolerate, namely injustice. His vigilant sympathy must be directed against all kinds of injustice. Democracy essay bedrock of democracy is democracy essay of speech, association and press. If not democratic personality of a citizen cannot be fully blossomed. Democracy demands that all sections of the people should be taken into confidence as far as practicable.
If there is no individual liberty there is no democracy. This liberty includes the freedom to freely and without fear express the views either in a democracy essay speech or in newspapers and other literary media. Man is a gregarious animal and as such there must be a guarantee of free association to mobilise public opinion. These are the three levers of democracy, democracy essay. A written constitution is better than an unwritten one, because in it all the powers of the authorities and the rights of the citizens are put in black and white. If there is no written constitution, the rights of the people will be vague and uncertain, democracy essay. Fortunately, the constitutions of India, France, Australia and the USA have written provisions in which the fundamental rights are guaranteed, democracy essay.
Although the constitution of England is an unwritten one the fundamental rights are enshrined in the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. If the guaranteed rights of the democracy essay are taken away by any authority, democracy essay, the people can depose the government and establish a better one. The theory of separation of power came as a safeguard of democracy. It guarantees the equal representation in the sharing of power to every section of the government. According to Charles-Louis Montesquieu, democracy essay, the father of this theory, concentration of powers of law-making and law-enforcing and law-interpreting in the hands of one person or body will be the very definition of tyranny, democracy essay.
In operational terms this theory requires certain sequence in the functioning of the government. The legislature, in this system, democracy essay, should have, an open debate on the subject and pass it by a majority decision. In the second stage the executive has to translate it into action. Judicial review will come in the third stage, in case there is an excess of arbitrariness in so executing the will of the legislature in the executive.
essay on industry
The entire Afro-Asian world derives its democratic model of government from India. The above discussion must not blind us about the hindrances that are plaguing the growth and healthy functioning of democracy in India. These are by and large religious evils associated with ignorance and superstitions. In spite of outward pretension to secularism, our rulers are rather of medieval mentality and obscurantist to the core. Even after forty-five years of independence, the Sati, child sacrifice, congregation of millions to wash their sins in the Ganga, and religious rivalry are very much in evidence. The progressive erosion of English education is closing the windows through which we could look out into the world of science.
Whenever a Hindi film heroine is in difficulty, she goes to a temple to pray and immediately God showers blessings on her! Such blind faith has stifled the spirit of enquiry and lulled us into inaction. We build more temples, mosques and gurdwaras than schools, libraries and hospitals. Like many Muslim countries, fundamentalism has raised its ugly head in India. The Sankaracharya of Puri considers Sati a sacred act. Such a person should have no place in a civilised society, but here he has millions of followers. Thus some evil aspects of Hinduism are also responsible for retarding the growth of democracy in India.
It is common knowledge that Hinduism, as distinct from Christianity, is characterised by a hereditary caste system that runs completely counter to the spirit of democracy. Thus, we see that over every government proposal to abolish the caste system an alarm is raised by people on the upper rungs of the caste ladder. Even the Marxist leaders, who are upper caste Hindus, yoke caste and communism together instead of trying to abolish the former. Reservation of jobs in service and places of educational institutions for backward castes could not have been justified in terms of democracy but for the recognition of caste distinctions in our society. Social reforms like abolition of caste system must be carried out first for Hinduism to survive with dignity before its first traditions and practices are upheld in the interest of democracy.
Essay 5. Liberal Democracy and Socialist Democracy : Democracy may be either of liberal brand or of socialist type. Both groups calls themselves the real democrats, calling others undemocratic. This is so because the term democracy is a very elastic conception. It is not possible to define liberal democracy. We can point out some fundamental features of liberal democracy. Finer and Alan Ball, the two exponents of the expression liberal democracy, have different sets of characteristics for this sort of democracy. For Finer, liberal democracy has four salient features. The first characteristic feature of liberal democracy is an elected legislature, sometimes with an elected head of state.
The legislature represents public opinion through free elections, freedoms of speech, press, assembly and association. The second important feature is its accountability of the consultative and advisory bodies to the legislature. The third element of the system is the social and economic checks and balances through a network of centres of private power. The fourth hallmark of liberal democracy is a system of political checks and balances in three ways:. Alan Ball, the other authority on liberal democracy, assigns to it the following seven elements. First, there must be multiple political parties to compete for political power. Second, such competition for political power must be free and open. Third, it is open to all to stand as a candidate for any post of political power.
Fourth, there will be elections at regular intervals on the basis of universal adult suffrage. Fifth, there will exist civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of religion. The press, radio and television, which are agencies of public media, will not be under the exclusive control of the government. Sixth, there will operate some kind of separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary. The seventh hallmark is the pressure groups which will assert themselves in regulating the policy decisions of the government. The government will not control the trade union and other associations. A wide range of population scattered over all the continents is covered by liberal democracy.
England, France, the USA, India, Japan have liberal democracy. The political form of the socialist state is called socialist democracy. A socialist state may be democratic or dictatorship in political nature. When the political form is democracy, it is called socialist democracy. Distinguished from liberal democracy, which the Marxists call bourgeois democracy which is marked by private ownership of means of production with the inherent exploitation of the poor by the rich, the Marxists consider socialist democracy as the only genuine democracy because there is no exploitation of one class by other since there is complete public ownership of means of production. The other shining aspect of it is that the citizens are given economic rights. There is a popular belief that Marx was an anathema for democracy.
In effect, Marx was a believer in democracy, of course in his own way. Marx wanted to replace the existing democracy which he called bourgeois democracy, a concept equated with what we call liberalist view of democracy. Marx also wanted his democracy to be a rule by the people. But he gave different connotation of people. For him, it does not include the rich exploiters, feudal lords or similar other stocks. His people include only the proletariat class i. the working class. The power must belong to the workers and the peasants, who will establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. This will be built on the debris of capitalism.
Marx appreciated the liberal democratic system in as much as it terminated the era of feudalism. Liberal democracy, in its turn, will be replaced by socialist democracy in which there will be no unemployment, starvation, poverty or anything of like nature. The Marxist democracy has three aspects — social, economic and political. In the social plank, it will obliterate class contradictions; in the economic front, it will establish common ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods; and in the political arena, it will establish the rule of the people through their free and voluntary associations called the Soviets.
The Marxian theory of democracy underlined the need for economic equality which is a must for a socialist democracy. Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto recommended ten measures for adoption by the progressive countries of the world. The Marxists believe that with the implementation of the above measures, economic power would be equi-distributed and economic equality will be ensured. Thus the Marxian democracy is nothing but economic democracy. Alan Ball suggests the following four elements as the basic features of socialist democracy. In the first place, there shall be a socialist ideology formulated and espoused by the government.
In the second place, there will be complete public control in all avenues of life, political, social and economic. In the third place, there is total absence of separation of powers and total denial of independence of judiciary. Finally, there shall be only one political party which is identifiable with the government. Essay 6. Difference between Liberal Democracy and Socialist Democracy: Liberal democracy and socialist democracy differ on the following points. In the first place, unlike private property which exists with liberal democracy, there is no private property in socialists democracy.
In socialist democracy, the means of production are complete public ownership. In the second place, in a liberal democracy the people are given only political and civil rights like right to property, right to freedom of speech and expression which are not available in a socialist democracy. In contrast, the people are assured right to work, rest and right to security in old age, which are a far cry in liberal democracy. In the third place, the print media like newspapers and electronic media like cinema, television are in the firm grip of the government in a socialist democracy, while these are left free in liberal democracy.
In the fourth place, the governmental noose is tightened over the trade union and voluntary associations in the case of socialist democracy. In juxtaposition, liberal democracy prefers not to interfere in those areas. In the fifth place, liberal democracy permits any number of political parties as required. But in a socialist democracy there is only one political party. Last, but not the least, is that the concept of separation of power with independence of judiciary is enthroned in liberal democracy. In a socialist democracy, the difference between the executive, legislature and judiciary is totally obliterated. Essay 7. Difference between Socialist Democracy and Democratic Socialism: Although socialist democracy and democratic socialism look very much alike, they are quite different cups of tea.
Socialist democracy is a kind of democracy. It is more socialist and less democratic. Its goal is socialism. In contrast, democratic socialism is more democratic and less socialist. Socialist democracy is opposed to liberal democracy. Democratic socialism, on the other hand, is not opposed to liberal democracy and at times the two are almost the same. Democratic socialism is a kind of socialism which abjures violence and attains socialism by peaceful means as against the use of force. Otherwise, it is a half-way socialism in as much as it believes in private property, more than one political party and allows private bodies to control the means of production.
It is liberal socialism, because it upholds the concept of separation of power and maintains the dignity of independence of judiciary. England, the USA, France and India are examples of democratic socialism, because in these countries the government has a welfare programme very much like socialism and at the same time keeping all the trappings of liberalism like free press, free political party, free elections on the basis of universal adult franchise and private property for the citizens and allowing both private and public bodies to control the means of production. In all these counties the power is captured by a non-violent method through secret ballots, as against use of force which is the method of the Marxists capturing power.
There is definitely exploitation of one class by another. So in this way we find democratic socialism merging with liberal democracy. In both these countries socialism in its full blast existed. Essay 8. Classical Theory of Democracy: The basic theory of democracy, as it is handed down to us by the Greeks, is rule by the people. Although Rousseau and Mill were the principal votaries of the classical theory of democracy, they were joined by several other political thinkers like John Locke, Edmund Burke, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Green, Albert Ven Dicey, James Bryce, A.
Lindsay and Harold J. Since Rousseau and Mill gave a complete picture of classical theory, we shall discuss their views as the basic features of the classic theory of democracy. iv By participating in the public life, an individual will enhance his prestige as a member of the community;. v This will induce him to evolve socially responsible actions and as such, the participation will have educative value;. i Following Rousseau, Mill wanted that the individual should take public interest to widen his outlook;. ii Participation must begin at home i. iii The most capable person should be voted to power. This public responsibility requires education. An educated person should have more votes than the uneducated ones;.
v Individual right is so remarkable that the opinion of the entire nation cannot and should not silence the minority decision. In the first place, if the uninterested and ill-informed people are asked to participate in the policy making functions of the government, it will do more harm than good. In the second place, no state has gained by increasing the number of voters, if the voters are not enlightened and dutiful. Best few must be better than bad many. The illiterate voters misuse their votes and even sell their votes. This will bring democracy to its knees. In the third place, the elitists believe that the art of politics might better be left to the most enlightened minority.
Leadership of the country cannot be left to the voters. This will create chaos and confusion. In the fourth place, if the voters themselves are to evolve the defence and foreign policy, it will be a bad day for democracy. This will result in the tyranny of the masses. This will be unworkable in a vast modern state. Lack of representation will make the government in the hands of unresponsive and unscrupulous persons and will thereby weaken the political system. With the loss of participation, political education will be on the low key. Whether it is possible or not, our ideal should be to have individual participation. A least in the field of ideology, participatory democracy is the best one.
The elitist theory of democracy is the opposite term of classical theory of democracy. We have noted that the emphasis of the classical theory of democracy is on the participatory process of each and every individual citizen. All should have a say in the policy making function of the government. In contrast, the elitists believe that only a few persons are enlightened and efficient enough to run the government and so these privileged few, who are more intelligent, should alone be invited to hold on the reins of political power. Thus a minority of population will rule over the majority of the population. The term elite stands for the chosen element in the population. All men are not equal. Some are more equal. This idea is as old as the Greek political thinker of fourth century B.
In his Republic, Plato reserved political power for the philosophers so much so that he believed that the evils of the society can be removed only if the philosophers made the rulers. The elitists support a kind of aristocracy or oligarchy. The authors of the elitist theory are two Italian sociologists, namely Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca. Later on a disciple of Mosca, Robert Michels, developed the theory in Germany. Then came four more elitists in the scene. They are O. Gasset, James Burnham, C. Wright Mills and Harold Lasswell. According to Pareto, the present history is the history of the relation between the elite and the non-elites.
The much more numerous class acquiesces in subordination to the elites who rule over them. The elites have all the qualities of the lion and fox. We know that Machiavelli made his prince the embodiment of the fox and the lion. James Burnham and C. Wright Mills are of the view that economic and social power was the most pivotal factors in the game of elite letting down the non-elites. They took their cue from Marxism. The elitist theory starts with the premise that there is an inherent inequality among the people, politically, economically and socially and that the chosen element of the population must have an exalted position in the society. It is in this context that Maurice Duverger suggested that the erstwhile theory of government by the people should be replaced by government by the elite sprung from the people.
This chosen element is found in a family club, trade union, bureaucracy and armed forces too. The elites grow up as a result of heredity, skill in arts and literature, position in ruling class and bureaucracy. They have both material affluence and physical strength. i The elitist theory supports inequality and moves the slate-craft in the back gear. It encourages racial discrimination of the type of apartheid in South Africa. iii It cuts the society into two artificial blocs by driving the wedge between two artificial segments of people. iv It concentrates powers in the hands of the bureaucracy without any definite authority to supervise over it.
The system is bound to degenerate into corruption and final ruin of the nation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. v The privileged few to have the monopoly of power is nothing short of oligarchy or aristocracy. There cannot be any such oligarchic element or aristocracy in democracy. vi All major revolutions of the world took place in protest against the privileges enjoyed by the chosen few in exclusion of the mass people. So, the elitist theory is danger mark in political system. Although as an ideal we cannot support the elitist theory of democracy, in practice it is an admitted fact that in all forms of government the switchboard of power is in the hands of the elites, because they are efficient and most competent to do so.
It is true that inequality is bad, it is equally true that inequality is the order of the day everywhere. So although we may not support elitism, there is no way out. Essay 9. Constitutional Democracy: Division of power is the basis of constitutional democracy. This is also called constitutionalism. Constitutionalism may be monarchical or it may be republican, it may be aristocratic or democratic. Of course there are those who would define democracy simply as the rule of the majority without any constitutional framework within which such majority decisions are to be made.
Such absolute democracy is, however, rare in the history of political institutions and nowhere to be found in contemporary Europe or America. Constitutionalism is an achievement of the modern world. It is a very recent achievement and it has by no means became stabilised. Like all institutions and concepts in political science direct democracy has both bright and dark sides. The other name of direct democracy is pure democracy. The most remarkable advantage of a direct democracy is that it offers direct participation of the citizens in the affairs of the government. The logic in support of direct democracy is that if democracy is a government by the people it must be given to the people directly and completely. Otherwise, democracy will not function effectively.
In that sense, the representative democracy or indirect democracy is to be rejected as half-democracy. Secondly, if the people are directly involved in the formation of the government, in making law or similar key roles in the run of the administration, they will take more and lively interest in public affairs. It is seen that when the final task is done by another set of people, the former set of people do not take much interest in it, because they feel that there are some other persons to give it final shape. It is pointed out that, by keeping an intermediate body between the people and the government, a representative democracy or indirect democracy establishes a gap between the people and the government.
This is against the very spirit of democracy. The most serious demerit of direct democracy is that it is out-dated and out-molded and not at all suitable for a modern state which is very vast and so cannot be brought under the umbrella of direct democracy. No doubt there was a time in the past when the small states in Greece and Rome were directly and efficiency ruled by the people. Such tiny states are no longer available in the modern world. Let us take the case of India, one of the largest democracies of the world. How can all the people of India gather together in one place and make laws for the whole of India? There is no such big area to accommodate all the people of India. Again, if all the people go to that place to make laws for India, who will look after their jobs like cultivation, works in the factory, teaching in the educational institutions, etc.?
This will create chaos and confusion all over the county. So, on the ground of inexpediency, the pure democracy is to be discarded. Secondly, if the entire population is to run the government from making law to its implementation, we are to assume that all people are equally intelligent and equally capable for all such work. But our experience is that all people are not equal in calibre. It is a common knowledge that the fools, idiots, beggars, the illiterate mass have no capacity to understand the art and science of government.
It will be too much to strain their efforts to carry on the administration. It is a fact that some people are more trained and capable in running the government. So they alone should be given the job. They can be directly elected by the people and as the representatives of the people they will carry on the political game. A secondary body like this is also necessary to check the passion and impulses of the common people. It is seen that the mass people go by passion, not by reason. Their representatives, who will be more reasoned and seasoned, should be given the task of running the country. Essay Merits and Demerits of Democracy in General: Merits of Democracy: First, democracy is ethically sound because it is opposed to the idea of one man ruling over another man. In a democracy no individual or a group of individuals but the entire community is vested with sovereign power.
Only that person is said to be free who possesses a vote and shares in determining state policy and electing the government. Secondly, democracy promotes the common welfare of the people Democracy caters to the needs of all because all shades of opinion represent the government. In such a system, a citizen is the ruler and at the same time the subject and thereby it conforms to the axiom that a just government is a government by consent of the governed. Democracy makes an individual interested in his country and gives him a sense of responsibility. Thirdly, it is in democracy that the concept of rule of law can have a full play.
According to this concept, which came from England, nobody is above law and everything must be done in accordance with the mandates of law. This principle is not only a replacement of the personal rule of a King but also a brake on the misuse of power by the government or any authority. Fourthly, democracy nurses the spirit of patriotism and nationalism of the people and evokes spontaneous obedience to law. In a democracy the people feel that they themselves are the government and the nation rolled into one. Fifthly, a democratic form of government cannot be tyrannical or oppressive, because it is responsible to the people at large. In a democracy the government is voted to power by the people and is answerable for its actions and policies to the rock-bottom of the people.
If the government fails to fulfil the aspirations of the people, it will be overthrown by the people in the next election. Again, there are free press and strong opposition which keep the government on guard. If the ruling party goes astray it will be outvoted in a vote of no-confidence. So a democratic form of government is a responsible government. Sixthly, a change in the government in a democracy is effected not in a violent way but through a peaceful method and thereby ensures a stability in administration. No other form of government has such a peaceful transition. When a revolution took place in England in to replace the disliked King James II by Willaim III, this was done without inviting any bloodshed.
So democracy is capable of meeting this type of national crisis peacefully. It can, as in a time of crisis, give enormous powers into the hands of the government, in cheerful confidence that, the crisis past, it can take them away. But this is not possible in any other type of government. Popular election, popular control and popular responsibility ensure not only efficiency in government but also stability in the state. Seventhly, democracy guarantees equality and liberty. Democracy makes no discrimination between the high and the low, the rich and the poor, and the wise and the fools and throws open all the opportunities, in the state to all the citizens of the state. Freedoms of all types are thereby ensured to all the citizens.
There is equal treatment for the son of a minister and the son of a peon in a democratic state. Similarly, the Hindus and the Muslims, or, for that matter, all men of different faiths, are never discriminated in the enjoyment of liberties. Eighthly, democracy ensures openness. One of the characteristics of democracy is its openness. The people value the performance of such democratic norm on the basis of availability of information, which they gather from a free press. Again, in the protests of the opposition and the public pressures made in the legislature are found other guarantees of openness of the government in a democracy. The parliamentary control over public policy through democratic debates preserve the endurance of the government.
The dictatorial or a totalitarian system, on the other hand, operates in the mystiques of secrecy. In such a system, politics is rather exclusive and insulated. On the other hand however, the minority needs may not be fully met by a democratic government. Those who voted against such a government would feel left out and would thus develop a feeling of dissatisfaction Collier, This notwithstanding, no system of politics or governance can see everybody get satisfied and it is only through democracy that a majority can be satisfied. Democracy operates on majority rule.
As earlier mentioned, democracy gives ordinary people the power to choose their leaders. Those who are preferred by the majority are regarded to be the elected leaders. However, in most countries, a high proportion of the population consists of illiterate or ignorant individuals who do not care about how the government is run. These people vote blindly and end up giving leadership positions to unqualified and undeserving persons. The elite makes up the minority in many countries, and their few numbers restrict them from determining those that assume positions of power. Democracy also proliferates inefficiency in governance. Most leaders in democratic countries focus more on creating political alliances rather than on development and administration.
Administration in many democratic countries is run by bureaucrats, who have no obligation to the people. Since most of those that elect such leaders are ignorant individuals, they are sucked into the debates of political alliances thus paying less attention to the delivery of services by such leaders. It therefore becomes difficult to foster infrastructural, social, and economic development in many democratic countries. People neglect their responsibilities of keeping the government in check, making it hard for leaders to make any meaningful developments. Democracy therefore negatively influences the ability of a country to experience significant economic growth.
Further, democracy encourages corruption. After elected leaders assume office, they embark on activities of forming new political parties and alliances. Leadership values and promises made to the people are forgotten. Developments are only initiated in regions that support ruling regimes, while other regions are neglected. The value of equality, which democracy purports to uphold, is often overlooked. Most state jobs are given based on favoritism. People in leadership positions use their influence to benefit those close to them and those who belong to their communities or support their political movements.
Democracy gives people the power to govern themselves. Through it, equality is upheld, and the rule of law takes its course. However, it also gives illiterate and ignorant individuals the power to lead others, and this contributes to inefficiency in governance and promotes corruption. Thus, democracy may only be of benefit to a country if used appropriately and in line with the true meaning of the word. Ankita, T. Preserve Articles. Campbell, D. The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Collier, R. Fundamental principles of democracy. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Ghiorgis, A. Thesis: Democracy is a system of government where the will of the people is the ultimate power. Though it has a decisive influence in most countries where it is practiced, several drawbacks amount from the practice.
It allows them to make laws, which promote equality and fair treatment for all. However, it also encourages corruption and promotes inefficiency in governance. Appropriate use of democracy benefits both a country and its people. com is a leading academic writing service that is dedicated to providing extra support and help to students all over the world. Through our website, students can request for help in a diverse range of subjects and disciplines. We understand that studies are the foundation of success; yet they can be quite a challenge without extra help. Ours, therefore, is to pick up where your lecturers stop by providing you with a reliable process for meeting your academic needs.
Do My Essay! Do not waste time. Get a complete paper today.
No comments:
Post a Comment