What is Democracy? Why Democracy?

Chapter Overview and the Objective of Defining Democracy

This chapter establishes a foundational exploration into the nature of democracy, starting from a simple definition and gradually expanding into a comprehensive understanding. The primary aim is to identify the bare minimum features required for a government to be classified as a democratic form of government. By the end of the study, a clear distinction should be made between democratic and non-democratic regimes. Beyond this minimal objective, the text introduces a broader conceptualization of democracy as the most prevalent and expanding form of government globally. It poses two central questions: What is democracy and its features? And why is democracy considered superior to other forms of government?

The Etymology and Evolution of the Word Democracy

A common starting point for understanding the term is its linguistic origin. The word democracy originates from the Greek word 'Demokratia'. In the Greek language, 'demos' signifies the people and 'kratia' signifies rule. Therefore, the literal definition extracted from its roots is "rule by the people." However, as noted by Lyngdoh Madam in the class discussion, a word is not always permanently tied to its origin. She provides the example of the word 'computer.' Originally, computers were specialized tools used for computing and calculating difficult mathematical sums (essentially powerful calculators). In modern times, they are used for writing, designing, listening to music, and watching films. While the word remains the same, the meaning has evolved. Thus, relying solely on etymology can be insufficient; one must think critically about the current application and meaning of the word.

The Rationale for Defining Democracy

The necessity of a definition arises when there is a difficulty or ambiguity in the use of a word. People use terms for different purposes, and many governments of varying types claim the label of democracy. A definition serves as a tool to distinguish a concept from similar things, such as distinguishing 'rain' from 'drizzle' or 'cloudburst.' While famous definitions exist, such as Abraham Lincoln’s statement that "Democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people," and while local practices like self-rule in Meghalaya are accepted, a formal definition is required to carefully distinguish between a government that truly is a democracy and one that merely pretends to be one. Every contemporary government desires to be called a democracy, making it essential to identify the specific features of a democratic government.

The Simple Definition and Its Limitations

A simple starting point for defining democracy is as follows: democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people. This definition allows for the immediate exclusion of non-democratic forms of government. For example, the army rulers in Myanmar were not elected by the people; those in control of the military simply became the rulers. Similarly, dictators like Pinochet in Chile are not elected. This logic also applies to monarchies, such as the Kings of Saudi Arabia, who rule not by popular choice but because they were born into the royal family. However, this simple definition is not entirely adequate. If used unthinkingly, it would lead to calling almost every government that holds an election a democracy, which would be misleading.

Core Feature 1: Major Decisions by Elected Leaders

A government can only be considered democratic if the final decision-making power rests with those individuals who are elected by the people. This feature is illustrated by the case of Pakistan under General Pervez Musharraf. In October $1999$ , Musharraf led a military coup, overthrew the elected government, and declared himself 'Chief Executive'. He later became President and held a referendum in $2002$ that granted him a five-year extension, though this was criticized by media and human rights groups as being based on fraud. In August $2002$ , he issued a 'Legal Framework Order' which amended the Constitution of Pakistan. This order allowed the President to dismiss national and provincial assemblies and mandated that the civilian cabinet be supervised by a National Security Council dominated by military officers. While elections were held and representatives were elected, they did not have final power. The final decision-making authority remained with the military and Musharraf. Therefore, because the actual rulers were not those elected by the people, this system could not be called a democracy.

Core Feature 2: Free and Fair Electoral Competition

A democracy must be based on free and fair elections where those currently in power have a genuine chance of losing. Elections must offer a real choice between different political alternatives. The text provides two examples where this criterion is failed:

In China, elections are held every $5$ years for the National People’s Congress (Quanguo Renmin Daibiao Dahui), which comprises nearly $3,000$ members and appoints the President. However, some members are elected by the army, and any candidate must be approved by the Chinese Communist Party. Only members of the Communist Party or its eight small allied parties were allowed to contest in the $2002$ - $03$ elections. Because the government is always formed by the Communist Party, there is no real choice presented to the people.

In Mexico, elections have been held every $6$ years to elect the President since independence in $1930$ . While the country never suffered a military or dictator's rule, until the year $2000$ , every single election was won by the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). Opposition parties contested but were prevented from winning through "dirty tricks." These included forcing government employees to attend party meetings, government teachers pressuring parents to vote for the PRI, and the media ignoring it or criticizing the opposition. Polling booths were sometimes moved at the last minute, and the PRI spent massive amounts of money on campaigns. Because the ruling party could not realistically be defeated, these elections were not fair.

Core Feature 3: One Person, One Vote, One Value

Democracy is fundamentally rooted in the principle of political equality. Each adult citizen must have one vote, and every vote must carry the same value. Despite the global acceptance of the principle of universal adult franchise, several instances of denial exist:

In Saudi Arabia, women did not have the right to vote until the year $2015$ .
In Estonia, citizenship rules are structured so that the Russian minority finds it difficult to obtain voting rights.
In Fiji, the electoral system weights the vote of an indigenous Fijian as having more value than that of an Indian-Fijian.

Political equality requires that even the poorest and least educated citizens have the exact same status and electoral influence as the rich and the educated.

Core Feature 4: Rule of Law and Respect for Rights

A democratic government must rule within limits set by constitutional law and respect the rights of its citizens. The example of Zimbabwe, which gained independence from white minority rule in $1980$ , illustrates this. Robert Mugabe and his party, ZANU-PF, ruled since independence. While Mugabe was popular, he used unfair practices to win elections. His government repeatedly changed the constitution to increase Presidential power and decrease accountability. Opposition workers were harassed, public protests were declared illegal, and a law restricted the right to criticize the President. The government controlled the media (television and radio), harassed independent journalists, and ignored court judgments. Mugabe was eventually forced out of office in $2017$ . This case proves that popular approval is necessary but not sufficient for democracy. A democratic state must respect basic rights: freedom of thought, opinion, expression, association, and protest. All should be equal before the law, protected by an independent judiciary. Furthermore, the government must respect minority rights and follow procedural rules and consultations for major decisions.

Summary of the Minimalist Definition

To summarize the core principles, democracy is a form of government in which:

Rulers elected by the people take all the major decisions.
Elections offer a choice and fair opportunity to change the current rulers.
This choice and opportunity is available to all people on an equal basis.
the exercise of this choice leads to a government limited by the basic rules of the constitution and citizens’ rights.

Arguments Against Democracy

During the classroom debate, several common criticisms of democracy were raised:

Instability: Leaders change frequently, leading to a lack of continuity.
Lack of Morality: Democracy is viewed as a theater for political competition and power play, leaving no room for ethics.
Delays: The requirement for consultation with many people slows down the decision-making process.
Bad Decisions: Elected leaders may not accurately know the best interests of the people.
Corruption: Because democracy is based on electoral competition, it often leads to corrupt practices.
Incompetence of the masses: Ordinary people may not know what is good for them and arguably should not be the ones deciding.

It is acknowledged that democracy is not a "magical solution." It has not ended poverty in India or elsewhere. However, the real comparison should not be between a real democracy and an ideal dictatorship, but rather between democracy and other existing alternatives.

Arguments For Democracy

Democracy is considered the best form of government for several reasons:

Accountability: A democratic government is more responsive to people's needs. An example is the China famine of $1958$ - $1961$ , where nearly $3$ crore ( $30,000,000$ ) people died. India, though economically similar, did not face such a famine because its democratic structure forced the government to respond to food scarcity. A free press and opposition parties are vital for this accountability.
Quality of Decisions: Because democracy relies on consultation and discussion with many people, it reduces the likelihood of rash, impulsive, or irresponsible decisions.
Conflict Resolution: In diverse societies like India, with different languages, religions, and castes, democracy provides a peaceful method to deal with differences. It ensures that no group is a permanent winner or loser, keeping the country together.
Dignity of Citizens: It recognizes political equality, treating the poor and uneducated with the same status as the wealthy. People are considered the rulers themselves, not just subjects.
Correction of Mistakes: Democracy does not guarantee that mistakes won't be made, but it allows for public discussion of those mistakes and provides a mechanism (either changing the decision or changing the rulers) to correct them.

Broader Meanings and the Ideal of Democracy

Beyond a form of government, democracy is a principle that can be applied to any sphere of life, including families or classrooms. A democratic decision involves the consultation and consent of all stakeholders, regardless of their power levels. The most common form in the modern world is representative democracy, where a majority rules through elected representatives. This is necessary because modern populations are too large for everyone to sit together, and citizens often lack the time or desire to participate in every decision.

However, there are also "ideal standards" for democracy, such as the idea that true democracy arrives only when no one goes hungry, or when every citizen has equal information and resources. While no country is a "perfect" democracy by these standards, they provide a benchmark to identify weaknesses. In smaller communities, direct democracy, such as the Gram Sabha in an Indian village, is the intended mode of operation. Ultimately, the strength and fate of a democracy depend on the active political participation of its citizens, more so than just the actions of the rulers.

Questions & Discussion

Merry’s Logical Objection: Merry questioned why the class discussed democracy first and defined it second, suggesting the meaning should come before the example. Madam Lyngdoh’s Response: She explained that in everyday life, we use words (like pen, rain, or love) before defining them. We only seek a specific definition when we encounter difficulty in distinguishing one thing from another.

Ribiang’s Query on Traditional Rule: Ribiang asked why a formal definition is needed since they in Meghalaya already "ruled themselves" and the definition by Abraham Lincoln was already accepted. Madam Lyngdoh’s Response: She agreed the definition is beautiful but emphasized the need for clarity because so many different governments now call themselves democracies even if they are not.

The Debate on Strong Leadership: Rose argued that the country needs a strong, honest, and sincere leader who does not have to worry about parliament or elections to remove poverty and corruption. Hoi’s Counter-argument: Hoi pointed out that such a person could become corrupt themselves and use power for their family. Comparing a real democracy to an "ideal" dictatorship is unfair, as real-life dictators are often the most corrupt and selfish, and cannot be removed.

Reflections on Global Inequality: A $2004$ report from the USA was cited to show how wealth inequality affects democratic participation.

An average White family earns $162$ units for every $100$ earned by a Black family and has $12$ times more wealth.
Voter turnout for families earning over $75,000$ is nearly $9$ out of $10$ , while for those under $15,000$ it is only $5$ out of $10$ .
$95\%$ of political contributions come from the rich, meaning their concerns (business) are heard more than the concerns of the poor (jobs, health, housing). This illustrates that even in established democracies, equality of participation is an ongoing challenge.

I can't take tests or quizzes for you, but I can help you study or clarify concepts related to your subject! Let me know if you need assistance with your study materials or have specific questions you want to go over.