What is Democracy? Why Democracy? Study Guide

Overview of the Study of Democracy

This chapter establishes a foundational understanding of democracy by building upon a simple definition and progressively exploring the complexities of its constituent terms. The primary objective is to define the bare minimum features required for a form of government to be considered democratic, thereby enabling a clear distinction between democratic and non-democratic governments. Beyond this minimal framework, the text introduces a broader conceptualization of democracy. It addresses why democracy has become the most prevalent form of government globally and examines its relative advantages over other systems. The inquiry is divided into two primary questions: What is democracy and why democracy?

The Difficulty and Necessity of Defining Democracy

The process of defining democracy begins with a classroom discussion involving Madam Matilda Lyngdoh and her students, Merry, Yolanda, and Ribiang. Merry questions the logic of discussing democracy before defining it, suggesting that the definition should precede examples. Madam Lyngdoh counters that in everyday life, we use words like pen, rain, or love without having a comprehensive definition first; the meaning is understood through usage. A formal definition is only required to resolve difficulties in usage, such as distinguishing rain from a drizzle or cloudburst. Similarly, a precise definition of democracy is necessary because diverse governments—including those that are not truly democratic—frequently claim the label for themselves.

Yolanda suggests using the etymological origin of the word. Democracy originates from the Greek word 'Demokratia'. In Greek, 'demos' means people and 'kratia' means rule, leading to the definition of democracy as "rule by the people." Madam Lyngdoh acknowledges this as helpful but warns that a word's meaning is not permanently tied to its origin. She uses the example of "computers," which originally meant powerful calculators for difficult mathematical sums but are now used for writing, designing, music, and film. Thus, the meaning of democracy must be evolved through contemporary thought rather than just historical roots.

The Simple Definition and its Limitations

A basic starting point for the discussion is the definition: "Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people." This definition serves to categorize certain regimes as clearly non-democratic. For example, the army rulers of Myanmar were not elected; they gained power through control of the military. Similarly, dictators like Pinochet in Chile are not elected, and the kings of Saudi Arabia rule because they were born into a royal family rather than being chosen by the citizenry.

However, this simple definition is considered inadequate. If applied unthinkingly, it would categorize almost every government that holds an election as a democracy, which would be misleading. In the contemporary world, many non-democratic governments attempt to project a democratic image by holding nominal elections. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the specific features of democratic systems to distinguish between actual democracies and those that merely pretend to be.

Major Decisions by Elected Leaders

The first essential feature of a democracy is that the final decision-making power must rest with those elected by the people. This is illustrated by the counter-example of Pakistan under General Pervez Musharraf. In October 1999, Musharraf led a military coup to overthrow a democratically elected government, declaring himself 'Chief Executive' and later 'President.' In 2002, he held a referendum that granted him a five-year extension, which human rights organizations and activists characterized as fraudulent.

In August 2002, he issued a 'Legal Framework Order' that amended the Constitution of Pakistan. This order empowered the President to dismiss national and provincial assemblies and established a National Security Council, dominated by military officers, to supervise the civilian cabinet. Although elections were subsequently held and representatives were elected, they lacked the power to make final decisions. The ultimate authority remained with General Musharraf and non-elected military officials. Such systems, common in many dictatorships and monarchies, may have formal elected bodies, but they fail the democratic test because the real power is held by non-elected or external actors.

Free and Fair Electoral Competition

A second feature of democracy is that it must be based on a free and fair election where those currently in power have a fair chance of losing. Holding regular elections is not sufficient if the process does not offer a real choice between political alternatives.

In China, elections are held every five years for the National People's Congress (Quanguo Renmin Daibiao Dahui), which comprises nearly 3,000 members, some of whom are elected by the army. This body has the power to appoint the President. However, candidates must receive approval from the Chinese Communist Party. In the 2002-03 elections, only members of the Communist Party or eight smaller allied parties were permitted to contest, ensuring the government is always formed by the Communist Party.

In Mexico, elections have been held every six years to elect the President since 1930. While the country was never under military rule, until 2000, every election was won by the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). The PRI utilized a variety of "dirty tricks" to maintain power: government employees were forced to attend party meetings, teachers pressured parents to vote for the PRI, and the media largely ignored or criticized opposition parties. Polling booths were sometimes moved at the last minute to disrupt voting, and the PRI spent massive sums on campaigns. In both the Chinese and Mexican cases, people did not have a genuine choice or the ability to defeat the ruling party, meaning these elections were not fair.

One Person, One Vote, One Value

Democracy is fundamentally rooted in political equality, which leads to the third feature: in a democracy, each adult citizen must have one vote, and each vote must have one value. While the principle of universal adult franchise is global, many countries have historically or currently denied equal voting rights.

Specific examples include:

Saudi Arabia: Women did not have the right to vote until 2015.
Estonia: Citizenship rules make it difficult for the ethnic Russian minority to obtain voting rights.
Fiji: The electoral system is weighted so that the vote of an indigenous Fijian has more value than that of an Indian-Fijian. These practices violate the core democratic principle that all citizens should participate in the selection of their rulers on an equal footing.

Rule of Law and Respect for Rights

The fourth feature of democracy is that a democratic government rules within limits set by constitutional law and citizens’ rights. The example of Zimbabwe highlights that popular approval of a leader is necessary but not sufficient for democracy. Zimbabwe gained independence from White minority rule in 1980 and was ruled by Robert Mugabe and his party, ZANU-PF, until 2017. Mugabe was popular but used unfair practices to win elections, changed the constitution to increase his power while decreasing accountability, and harassed opposition workers.

In Zimbabwe, public protests were declared illegal, and a law limited the right to criticize the President. The government controlled the television and radio and ignored court judgments that went against its interests. A democracy requires that the state respect basic rights: citizens must be free to think, express opinions, form associations, and protest. There must be an independent judiciary whose orders are obeyed by all. Furthermore, after an election, the government must respect guarantees to minorities, follow constitutional rules, and remain accountable to both the people and other independent officials through a series of consultations for major decisions.

Summary of Democratic Features

To summarize the four minimum features of a democratic government:

Rulers who are elected by the people make all the major decisions.
Elections provide a fair opportunity and a real choice for the people to change their current rulers.
This choice and opportunity are available to all citizens on an equal basis.
The exercise of this choice results in a government that is limited by the basic rules of the constitution and the rights of the citizens.

Debating the Merits of Democracy

A classroom debate highlights common arguments for and against democracy. Arguments against democracy include:

Instability caused by frequently changing leaders.
A lack of morality due to a focus on political competition and power play.
Delays in decision-making because so many people must be consulted.
Bad decisions made by leaders who do not know the best interest of the people.
Corruption stemming from electoral competition.
The belief that ordinary people are not equipped to make good decisions.

In response to these points, proponents argue that while democracy is not a magical solution and does not automatically end poverty, it is superior to alternatives. One major argument is accountability. During China's famine of 1958-1961, which caused nearly 3 crore deaths, India did not experience a similar catastrophe despite similar economic conditions. Economists attribute this to India's democratic system, where a free press and opposition parties forced the government to respond to food scarcity. A democratic government is more accountable because it is required to attend to the needs of the people.

Other strengths of democracy include:

Improved Quality of Decision-Making: Because decisions involve consultation and discussion among many people, the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions are reduced.
Conflict Resolution: Democracy provides a peaceful method for resolving differences in diverse societies like India, ensuring no group is a permanent winner or loser.
Dignity of Citizens: Based on political equality, it recognizes that the poorest and least educated have the same status as the wealthy.
Self-Correction: Democracy allows for mistakes to be identified and corrected through public discussion or by changing the rulers.

Broader Meanings and the Ideal of Democracy

In modern times, democracy usually takes the form of representative democracy. In large populations, it is physically impossible for all citizens to sit together and take collective decisions. Furthermore, individual citizens often lack the time, desire, or skills necessary for complex decision-making. Therefore, the majority rules through elected representatives. However, the democratic principle can be applied beyond the government to families, classrooms, and political parties—anywhere decisions are made based on the consent and consultation of those affected regardless of their power.

Democracy also serves as an ideal standard. Statements like "True democracy will come… only when no one goes hungry to bed" or the requirement for every citizen to have equal access to information, education, and resources set benchmarks that no existing country perfectly meets. These ideals help us judge existing democracies and identify weaknesses. Ultimately, the strength of a democracy depends not just on what rulers do, but on the active political participation and conduct of its citizens.

Questions & Discussion

The transcript includes a "Check Your Progress" section featuring several famous quotations on democracy for reflection:

"Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor."
"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators after they’ve told you what you think it is you want to hear."
"Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."
"Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
"All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy."

Additionally, students discussed whether a "strong leader" who bypasses parliament (a dictator) could solve issues like corruption and poverty. Hoi pointed out that such leaders often use power for themselves and their families and are difficult to remove. Madam Lyngdoh concluded that the value of the democratic classroom they were currently in exists because they were free to express their minds—an opportunity often denied in non-democratic systems.