Democracy - A Note

Here we go...part one of maybe a multiple part series...or maybe I will lose interest after this one...lets see...
I took a book on Democracy by Bernard Crick and it was an amazing journey on the development of the concept and its implementation as it stands today. I want to write this so that I can look back at it if/when I start forgetting what I read and what I felt while reading it.

Democracy as some philosophers feel is an "essentially contested concept", something that can never be defined universally but still is considered as the definition of a good government...or a pre-requisite at the very least. It is a term often (mis)used by the political class when trying to suggest superiority of one government over the other - "we are the largest democracy! We are more democratic then them" - and so on.

To understand it better one needs to be aware of the manner in which it evolved over time...That's what this note is going to be about.

The word first emerged around 4th century BC in Athens, Demokratia - the rule (kratos) of the people (demos). The earliest usage can be found in Plato's writings where he attacks it by calling it a rule of poor and ignorant over the educated and the knowledgeable. His fundamental opposition was between knowledge and opinion. (I for one find this distinction extremely interesting) To him democracy was the rule or rather the anarchy of mere opinion.
His pupil, Aristotle, modified the strong views - it was ok for some to rule with the consent of many...the "some" needed to have excellence (aristocrats in other words) while "many" didn't mean the entire population (most certainly not women and slaves). To be able to choose one needed to have some education and some property. But the requirement of knowledge remained at the forefront of things - "just because men are equal in somethings, they can not be considered equal in all."

With time the concept/doctrine of democracy took root and it was realized that involving its citizens made the state more stable. This idea was further developed by Machiavelli in his book Discourses, around the 17th century. Developing Aristotle's theory further he said that good laws to protect all are not good enough unless subjects become active citizens. They should try and seek responsibility. He understood that the state is a lot safer in the hands of people fighting for a cause(the state) rather than in the hands of armed militia...

And then with the French revolution the idea of democracy also got revolutionized....with aristocracy toppled over by common people...the rules of engagement changed. Suddenly everyone regardless of education and property had a right to make his contribution into the decision making process for it was felt that the greater common good is understood better by the common citizen than the aristocrats living in an artificial make believe world. This threw up a new issue...division between individual liberties and the rights of the state.

The fourth usage comes from the American constitution and most of the constitutions ever since (even though it was formed before America really became a democracy) - All can participate (and they should), all must mutually respect the equal rights of fellow citizens within a regulated legal order that defines, protects and limits those rights. A fusion of rights of the people and the idea of legally guaranteed individual rights. The two are distinct ideas and often contradictory (that’s what happens when you get lawyers involved...)

Of course in today's world, with all the information overload and media hype its difficult to combine freedom and popular power. Neither there is one right and valid method (cant think of any other word) to it. There remain a number of factors that shape its form and implementation - factors like religion, culture, etc. So one form of democracy is not automatically better than the other…it can only be the best that can be implemented under the given circumstances…and that's the key question…is it able to serve its purpose in its current form in a given region at a given period of time?

In the next part (if it comes), I ll write about what essentially makes a democracy tick..:)

Anyways, a round of applause to anyone who actually read all of that…haha…but the evolution of this doctrine is something I find fascinating. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested and a lot of what I wrote actually comes from its pages...