Discuss: 'Democracy is the worst form of government.'
Written by Alex Brown (October 2005)
There are many different ways in which to run a country. Democracy, as used in the U.K., is seen as a fair and suitable way for the country to be run as it involves the opinions and choices of the citizens. There are other ways such as totalitarianism, fascism, imperialism, socialism and even archaism. These systems have been tried in various countries and at many different times, there are pros and cons for them all but does democracy have the most cons and the least pros? Are there better options than democracy? If so, what are they?
Democracy
Democracy literally means ‘Rule by the people.’ This is generally seen as the best way to ‘rule’ a country as it incorporates the need of the publics view to be heard. Democracy is the most popular form of government as it offers legitimacy to the government. The government is either elected in trust or holds referendums to find out how the citizens of the country feel about certain issues. In a democracy the public have a say in how the country is run, or if nothing else, it chooses the people who are going to make the decisions for them. This is meant to suggest that as the people have say, it is them who are contributing the most to the countries decision making because the government can do nothing without their support, in theory.
There are two forms of democracy and to properly assess whether it is the worst form of government we must explore them both;
Liberal / Representative Democracy –
This is the most common form of democracy. In liberal democracy elections are held where the electorate choose a representative of their area to stand for their beliefs. Like in the U.K., a government is chosen and then are trusted (through the mandate theory) to deliver the promises set out in their manifestos.
An advantage this holds over Direct Democracy is that decision can be made quickly as the government have the power to act without direct consultation of the public. Another advantage is that, as most of the electorate are relatively uninformed and often uninterested by the specific actions of the country, it is left up to the government to do their job and to make well informed and sensible decisions that hold the countries (and consequently the electorates) best views at heart.
The disadvantages are that if the people start to lose trust in the government or disagree with what they are currently doing/about to do, then there is not a lot (other than protesting) they can do. The representatives also tend to lose touch with the very people they were elected to represent; this could be a reason why so many people feel alienated from politics. If their representative spent more time in touch with the voters then maybe there would be a greater interest.
A feature of liberal democracies is the use of political parties. These parties pit forward their aims in a manifesto before the general election and hope that voters will believe the parties’ aims suit there needs the most. The problem with political parties it that it leads to the representatives of the people being accountable to them and not the electorate, meaning the MPs (for example) must obey their party firstly, and their constituency secondly.
Direct Democracy –
In direct democracy the electorate gather to decide on certain issues rather than have people elected to make the decisions for them. Referendums are a characteristic of a direct democracy but are often used in liberal democracy to see how the public feels on a certain issue.
Direct Democracy worked very well in ancient Greece. The idea behind it is that people can vote on the individual decisions and consequently live in a country that they more directly control. The advantages over Liberal Democracies are that people do not have to have an allegiance to a certain political party and instead just have to make up their mind how they feel on certain issues facing the country. This means that the actions of the country will be what the public wants, rather than what an empowered government wants. This is possibly a system that gives the people what they want, however problems can occur when they don’t know what they want and they need people to make a good decision for them.
A problem facing direct democracy is that everyone has to be to gather together (although technology would make it easier, interactive television for example) for a decision to be made and time does not permit this. The decisions that are made by leaders of a country are often made quickly as there is not enough time to sit and deliberate.
Another issue is that the general public to do understand the complex subjects which need to be voted on. It would be too much to ask someone to work and keep other commitments whilst also keeping up to date and informed with all serious matters which the government may choose to call a referendum on at any time. In a liberal Democracy, it the job of the MP to be informed about current affairs and not the duty of a citizen. Asking the public to vote on everything (or at least the important things) could also lead to the outcome to be a serious mistake in the making as when people vote they might not fully consider the repercussions or the effect this will have.
Advantages of Democracy
It is the countries duty to provide its citizens with a suitable society to live in, and by using democracy the government can find out how the public want this society to be run.
Governments which have no democracy are often criticised for taking actions without legitimacy. The use of democracy in the government offers this legitimacy as long as the elections are seen as free, fair and competitive. In free, fair and competitive elections people have a right to choose the party or representative they want, the right to freedom of speech and an unbiased election where amount of votes relates in a reasonably accurate manner into seats or power in the government. This happens in the U.K. where each constituent becomes one seat in the House of Commons.
Disadvantages of Democracy
Surely a country run by the people of the country is going to be a good thing? But exactly how much ‘running’ of the country do the people do? In a Liberal Democracy do they really decide what the country does at all? The problem of a democracy is that many of the public want the same thing, and this thing may not be in the interests of the country. For example, I’m sure if given the option everyone would want lower tax rates, not surprising really, but this isn’t in the best interests of the country, as the country needs money to implement its plans. The public are fickle, voting for whoever suits their needs and not necessarily thinking of how this leader ship is going to suit their country as a nation. I wonder how many people care more about things such as the economy and the EU and less about income tax and their pension.
It has be said that many of the political parties (or at least any of them with a reasonable chance of winning a General Election in the foreseeable future) have become too a like. To many of the voters, all of the parties are the same. This can lead to a low voter turnout (the last general election showed a 60% turnout of the electorate. If there is no real choice for the voter then they may see no reason to vote. Another reason for political apathy is the popular saying ‘My vote doesn’t change anything’. If people do not value their vote and believe that they have no power to change anything then democracy is ruined. People should value their vote – imagine how different the last General Election could have been if those 40% had voted. Democracy relies on the electorate voting, the government need the support of the public.
Alternatives to Democracy
Democracy has its good and bad points, but what are the alternatives ways to govern a country?
Aristocracy:
An aristocracy is a combination of many powerful men, for the purpose of maintaining and advancing their own particular interests. This is where there are a few elite people who rule the majority. These few are chosen by birth (usually by being born into a ‘prestigious’ family) or by wealth (the wealthy rule as they have money to do things). The power of the few elite can be exercised over the public. The elite become the elite as they possess better material goods or are part of a family which does. This is some ways is similar to a Monarchy where the King/Queen has power over the country.
Aristocracies are generally and unsurprisingly considered unfair as the public get to choice or say what so ever in what happens. It is merely the well off ruling the less fortunate. If you have a good and fair leader then, yes this could be a success, but that is as with everything, with provisions the system could work.
The theory that the elite must know how to rule a country better than any of the general public, I believe, is incorrect and I fail to believe that you can be born as a good leader. I therefore think that Aristocracy is not the best form of government.
Socialist:
In the extreme of this system there is no need for a government at all. The people in society all just help each other and work for one another without the need for a government intervention in anything. There are no private businesses and everyone works for the society. The idea behind it is that as long as everyone in society does their job then society will function properly and will not be short of anything. It is the perfect utopian society.
This requires people to be completely selfless and to be willing to forget about all personal goals and to work towards a group goal with the other members of society. In socialism there is no room for people to want to achieve more and strive on to make more money and to have a nice house or car. The problems facing this, as seen in Russia, is that there is little incentive to do your job properly as whatever you do you will always gets the necessities. The country this socialist society is in would also have to be quite prosperous and provide the essentials to society as there would be no need for money and so no trading could take place with other countries. Society is meant to be self sufficient.
People in professions where you can make a lot of money in capitalist societies will be missing out as in a socialist one they will be getting not much more than someone who sweeps the roads as in the eyes of socialism, both jobs are equally important.
Another setback for socialism is the issue of a possible conflict with another country. In this situation there would be very little they could do as there is no government or power in the country. There would be no leader to sort out international matters and no army to defend the country.
However, as long as there where people to commit themselves to the cause of the greater good and willing to be completely selfless, then this government (or rather lack of government) could prove to be very successful.
Monarchy:
In a Monarchy the state is ruled by a King or Queen who holds complete and undisputed power over everyone else in the country. This power is hereditary and stays with them until they die. You can be part of the royal family but not hold any power. When the monarch dies, their partner, son or daughter are the immediate candidates for receiving the crown although if there are none the next closest relative can become the monarch. The Monarch controls the executive, legislative, and judicial powers and has an unquestionable power over everything and the freedom to do essentially as they like.
In the U.K. we have had a Monarch for a very long time and we currently still do. However, we do not give full power to the royal family as we live in a constitutional monarchy which means that the Queen and the Royal family passes over all her power to the elected government and her agreement on laws for example is a formality.
Of course there are a few people who still believe that a Monarchy is suitable but for the most part people tend to believe that the idea of an Absolute Monarchy (Monarchy with complete power) is a bit outdated. With so many Kings and Queens throughout history giving us many reasons why giving this amount of power to any one person is dangerous, I think it is safe to conclude that this is not the best form of government.
Dictatorship:
This is the extreme opposite of democracy. The public do not, in any way get a say in this kind of government, everything is controlled by one person. This one person could have taken control by force. Totalitarianism is sometimes strongly linked to Dictatorship as they both exhort extreme and complete power on a state without having to take anyone else’s view point or opinion into account.
Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in ‘Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy’ (1956) proposed that totalitarianism included:
a) An ideology to which adherence is demanded.
b) A mass party which is interwoven with a state bureaucracy.
c) Exclusive control of the armed forces.
d) Exclusive control over the media and mass communication.
e) A secret police force.
f) Central control over the economy.
These aims and objectives are common for most ideas of dictatorship. The person or group controlling the country has complete control. They control the people through manipulation, influence (through the media) or through force.
Obviously I do not feel that this is an appropriate way to rule a country as I feel the lives and actions of many people should not depend on the decisions of a sole person who has complete power. I do not think anyone should have this amount of power over so many people.
Conclusion
These have been just a few examples of the many different types of governments that have been used or at least suggested. The main differences between them all are the positioning of power in society. In democracies or extreme socialist states the power is equally divided between all citizens whereas in the dictatorships, monarchies and aristocracies the power is not equally spread over the many, it is kept by the minority.
This can cause a problem in the way that people may be being ruled by some rulers who do not know how to run a country or do not care about the best interests for the general public. However, a good point of this kind of government is that it is fast and easy to resolve a problem as there is no one who needs to be consulted first. Although this can only really be an advantage is a good government is in power. If a tyranny occurs then although as a country they may do well, the people of the country will probably be very unhappy with home affairs.
Democracy does consider the peoples views and I feel that it does work. The problem is getting participation from the entire electorate, as without that its not really what the country want. More incentives to vote and more deterrents for not voting should increase the percentages of people voting in the General Elections and then maybe we can have a true democracy with a government thar has support and can work towards solving an problems this country may encounter.
No, I do not feel that democracy is the worst form of government, I do realise however that like all other governments it has its flaws. I do not think there is any realistic alternative to democracy. Group participation in how the country is run is essential in politics and I believe it should be the majority that decides the direction the country takes. I believe that representational or liberal democracy is the best option for countries as it will allow well informed decisions to be made quickly and hopefully work effectively.
Bibliography:
When preparing for this essay I read and used information from: