Democracy - Equality and Liberty

Central to the idea of democracy are the twin concepts of equality and individual liberty. Equality is often taken to mean that all citizens of a country are equal in some basic respect. When all individuals are taken to be equal then it is obvious that one person can not decide for the other. Therefore all need to be given the same rights and meted out the same treatment. Of course, a look at history suggests that the right to equal treatment has not been
given to all. It was initially based on sex, wealth, age. Today in a democracy the right to equal treatment is shared by all citizens of a country over a certain age. Equality becomes critical during decision making. Equality aims to guarantee participation and thus avoid a situation where one party decides to disobey the decision because they were not allowed to participate in the decision making process.
Liberty has just as many connotations as equality and they again affect expectations of democracy. Experts suggest three set of ideas for liberty - republican,liberal and idealist. The republican view measures liberty in terms of a free political community. The liberal view is more concerned with individual freedom to do as he/she pleases. In between these views is the idealist view where the individual has the freedom but also the sense to make the right choices or demands.
But obviously a nation is more than an individual. Therefore it is the manner in which individual freedom interacts with the group that ties liberty to democracy. As individuals don't live in isolation, it is important that an individual's freedom of action does not infringe the freedom of others. Some experts see this as the only role for the state. Anything more and they see it as a threat to liberty.
It is this mix of individual rights and being an equal participant in decision making collectively that causes the tension between equality and liberty. A classic example is the desire to bring about economic equality. This can lead to a collective/majority decision to tax the rich more than others, thus infringing the right of the rich to spend their money as they choose. In such a situation, self rule is cited as a way out...and how self rule is to be achieved marks the major division between various forms of democracy.

At one extreme is what is known as Participatory Democracy. At the other extreme is the idea that people are willing to be ruled by a set of people chosen by them periodically [Representative/liberal] which often is the layman's definition of democracy. In between lies various shades, an example for which is people voting on an issue of national importance[Referendum]. Also, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, an upper chamber is often recommended which will consist of meritorious experts in different areas.

So clearly it is difficult for a society to define what their expectations from this philosophy is. This fine balancing act gets more difficult when you start adding riders to the two opposing yet required forces. These riders include reservations, different laws for different sections of the society, etc.
Is it surprising then that our in-competent members of the legislature have done away with these goals of democracy and reduced it to a power game.