Week 5 – “What is Democracy Anyways?”
Well auntie Gertrude I am glad you asked that question. This is a question which a good portion of the course I am taking focuses on. The fact of the matter is that throughout history and across countries and disciplines there are thousands of definitions and conceptions of what democracy actually is. This is even further complicated by the fact that scholars like to append modifiers onto the word democracy to specify a specific subtype of the term, like ‘limited’ or ‘military’ or ‘parliamentary’. At the base roots, however, democracy is seen to be a political system where the people themselves posses state sovereignty. You can contrast this with authoritarian or monarchical regimes where the leader of the state is sovereign and the people are their subjects. In a very real way, in a proper democracy, the government is the subject of the people. This leads to a range of different degrees to which this may happen or not happen in a ‘democratic’ country.
The easiest way to ensure that people have sovereignty is through elections, and this is the most clearly visible characteristic of a modern democracy. Clearly the existence of elections alone can not guarantee democraticness. There needs to be a free and fair aspect to it, where people are not coerced to vote for the status quo, voting procedures and counting are done by an independent agency and fairly, and the existence of more than one political party. Any violations of these principles would nullify the very point of elections, and rob the people of their sovereignty thus ruining democracy. Similarly, not allowing for universal (or at least rationally universal) suffrage would negate democracy. It would essentially be robbing a portion of the people of their sovereignty and thus elevating the voters to a political status higher than non-voters. Instead of rule of the people, one would see rule of some people over others, the antithesis of democracy. In addition, the existence of frequent elections is necessarily. There are countries who are self-proclaimed democracies yet have not had an election for decades. The sovereignty in these states surely does not rest with the people.
It is often argued whether protection of minorities and human rights is a necessary component of democracy. Some would submit that the ability to choose ones own dictator is sufficient for democracy, that is the existence of elections. I believe, however, that for sovereignty to truly rest in the people, human and minority rights must be protected. Presumably, people would not exercise their sovereignty in such a way as to infringe upon their own rights, or allow a majority to do so. Therefore it is up to a democratically elected government to act in the interests of the people at large. A minimalist definition of democracy, where leadership competition is sufficient for the label, is something I disagree with. The root of democracy is a sovereign people, and this necessitates protection of all those who are able to exercise it through voting.k