Democracy: An Advancement and Universal Value
Nowadays, in the United States and elsewhere, the first question seems to be answered by nothing short of common sense. Obviously though, there are some that might make the claim that democracy is not always the best route for a citizenry to take, or more commonly, that inn poorer countries, the path to economic advancement and wealth is not one that adheres to the principles of democracy. For the sake of those critics, and indeed for the democratic world that should of course follow nothing blindly as well, that question deserves more than a passing glance.
Nobel Prize Winner and economist Amartya Sen attacked the second question in his essay and speech entitled "Building a Worldwide Movement for Democracy." Though what Sen has written seems correct and accurate, it seems that the question of whether democracy, or anything really, is a universal value is much less empirical than Sen, as an economist, treats it. More discussion on what qualifies as a universal value and whether or not democracy fits the qualifications is needed.
Without looking far, it's clear to see that the 20th century truly was the so-called "Democratic Century." At the beginning of the century, democracy was hard to come by. Even in the United States, which has long prided itself on its democratic values, was what can be considered a restrictive democracy. Despite rhetoric about equality and fair representation, women and blacks were not allowed suffrage. In other nations that at the time, similar restrictions on who could vote (usually not women) held the number of true democracies at zero.
Certainly one can argue that even today, with political power being held largely be the wealthy, and constant arguments and scandals over corruption, voter fraud, and possible election rigging, that a true democracy is more of an ideal or a goal than an attainable reality or a present incarnation. Regardless of those claims, a line can be drawn at the realization of universal suffrage for adults, dividing pseudo-democracies and other forms of government from what will be, for this paper, termed "true democracies."
As stated, at the turn of the century, there were no true democracies, and even restrictive democracies were hard to come by, ruling over only 12.4% of the world's population. (Democracy's Century) By the middle of a century plagued with war and dictatorships, much of the world was changing its mind about democracy. Colonies granted freedom extrapolated from that their own democracies. A rebuilt Europe and Japan followed suit to a large extent. By 1950 there were 43 democratic or restrictively democratic nations, making up over 40% of the Earth's population. (Democracy's Century)
By the year 2000, democracies had clearly taken dominance over the monarchies of the previous century, and in reality, over all competing forms of governance. The end of the Cold War and reforms in central American and Africa have brought tremendous change to many previously disenfranchised. Of the 192 sovereign states in the world at the time, 210 practice democracy. (Democracy's Century) It was in just the last fifty years that democracy grew to include a majority of the world's nations and a majority of the world's population. Clearly, the 20th century was indeed the Century of Democracy.
So it being established that democracy has indeed spread considerably though the last century, the next step is to quantify the statement that democracy is simply a good thing, as though most Americans can agree with that statement as a reflex, it never hurts to explain it further. Democracy in a country, true and complete democracy, cannot help but bring about increased freedom for the citizenry, will most likely bring about increased protection of minorities, allows the government to be more versatile and adaptive to problems that may arise, and provides a nation with strong leadership longer into the future than other forms of government.
First it should be defined what a true and complete democracy is. As already discussed a true democracy must include voting rights for each and every adult. In addition to universal suffrage, a complete democracy must have the power divided among the people, most practically through representatives. A dictator being elected by the majority of his country does not qualify as democracy. Also, in order to be a complete and effective democracy, the electorate must be capable of being informed by a free and unfettered press. The people must be informed on the necessary issues and be able to freely elect officials which represent their views on those issues. Though surely one can make the claim that no democracy in the world has a population that is completely informed on all issues, has potential representatives that accurately represent their views without corruption, legal and illegal, but again, if the perfect democracy is an unreachable ideal, the true and complete democracy is a close second and a suitable choice given the alternatives.
The first benefit of democracy is that it brings about an increase in freedom. Simply put, people like freedom, and if people are given the power to form their own laws, they will choose freedom. These freedoms may not go as far as some in a country would desire; here in the United States for instance, though we have expansive freedom in most respects, there are still limits on issues like homosexual marriages, some gene therapy and research, and even campaign donations, but when it comes to basic rights like the right to free speech, a free press, suffrage, representation, and the like, democracies are more allowing by nature. It is difficult to repress a people that are in charge of deciding who is in power.
The birth of democracy in a country has almost immediately led to increased freedoms through history. One only has to look to the recently liberated Afghanistan as an example. With the expelled Taliban no longer in power, everything from men shaving beards and buying songbirds to more important free acts like women going to school and being allowed to work came about with great speed. However, since one could envision a dictatorship where the ruler allowed a plethora of rights to all(though that has yet to happen), the grocery list of the benefits of democracy must be continued to prove its worth.
The second benefit of democracy to be addressed is the increased likelihood of a minority being protected. Certainly, however, a democracy that discriminates to the point of government sanctioned human rights violations is possible, but one finds that in democracies, the first laws to be written are ones protecting from an overly harsh government. It would be hard to imagine a country forming a democracy similar to the United States and immediately passing a law protecting freedom from undue search and seizure, except in the case of such and such ethnic minority, or some such law. In addition to that being unlikely, even in a majority rule democracy, the minority has immense powers to fight back against what they see as unjust. Through the press, they can plead their case. As a voting block, they can attempt to get their representatives elected or at the very least lobby to stop persecution. Finding a majority of a nation that wants to commit any sort of atrocity or blatantly unjust action is not an easy task, meaning odds are that a minority would have a fairer time in a democracy than elsewhere. Where it takes only a strong leader to be prejudiced in a dictatorship to commit some immoral persecution, in a democracy, at least it is a little harder.
A more decisive advantage of a democracy is its desire to react to problems that my arise quicker and indeed better than in another government. If a problem arises in a country, say perhaps there is massive famine or crime or poverty, where a dictator can peacefully hope to wait out the troubles or just not care, or where a dictator can keep faith that his programs will fix the problem even when they are not working, democratic leaders must work to fix the problem immediately. If they do not, they will shortly be out of office and replaced by others that are either more capable or more willing to fix the problem. Democracy goes hand in hand with a usually united free market economy in this sense. If leaders are not fixing a problem or just do not care, they will not be leaders much longer.
The final advantage of a democracy to be discussed here is the way in which strong leadership, though possible not completely constant, is overall long term in a democracy. There are a few types of leaders in this world: those that came to power through heredity, those that are more charismatic and created their own movements, and then those elected through democratic processes (though sometimes those leaders have some aspect of the other two in their character).
A traditional monarchy, or any related hybrid government, is flawed in that it relied on hereditary title. Perhaps the king currently in control is a great leader. Perhaps all of the people of his country are well provided for. Perhaps his nation is undergoing a time of prosperity never before seen. Will the same situation continue through the reign of his son, the next king? Will it continue on during the next reign of his grandson? It is impossible to continue for too long without coming under the rule of an inadequate leader. Even with a skilled team of advisors, a bad king is a bad king. Within a democracy, this is not a problem. Though good leaders could potentially be lost too soon to term limits (which incidentally I'm in favor of, for unrelated reasons), there is no chance of getting stuck with a bad leader for more than a handful of years. Even democratic nations without short term limits, a populace can vote themselves clean of their poor leader as soon as his term is up and find themselves someone better.
The problem with counties run by a regime with a particularly powerful or charismatic leader have just the opposite problem. If a leader comes to power through rebellion or any other means, even if that leader is a great leader, it is likely that with his death, his movement will end or at least faces the risk of falling into unworthy hands. A perfect example is Adolf Hitler. Though certainly Hitler was a horrible man, many in his country felt he was a great leader. Almost singlehandedly he brought his movement and his regime to power, but with his death (in this case the defeat of his army and then his death) there was no one to continue on. Even had Hitler died of natural causes, the Nazi party would have lost much power and support right along with him. If a charismatic leader dies who is to fill his place? Someone from his own ranks, who obviously wasn't as great of a leader or else he would have been the one in charge? A relative, perhaps a son? In the first case, the country will be governed by a leader at least below the level of the first crusader. In the second situation, the problems of hereditary title come into play again and the nation is disadvantaged and could face catastrophe.
Democracy does not have this problem. If a particularly good President leaves office, not all is lost, as the government does not rest on his rule solely. The division of powers in the United States is similar to the division of powers any informed people would vote for in their democracy to ensure that the people are represented in a more personalized, more direct manner. This means that the power, character, and worth of the government does not come and go with leaders but instead resides in the system itself. There is no confusion as to where the next leader where come from, because of course he or she will be voted for. The smooth flow of power from desired leader to desired leader is just another of the many advantages of democracy over other government forms.
It being concluded that democracy is a great advancement for mankind, the question to be asked next is if democracy is in itself a universal value.
To answer this question, it must be defined what is meant by a "universal value." A universal value is something, some virtue filled convention or idea, that benefits all who live lives with it. Honesty, for instance, is a universal value in that any society that disregards honesty and bothers not to live reasonably honest lives is bound to fail. Regardless of what region a society lives in, how wealthy they are, how numerous the people are -- regardless of any specific characteristic of the society -- honesty is beneficial if adopted. Any virtue, or virtuous system, that meets this simple criteria is a universal value.
As correctly stated by Amartya Sen, in his speech previously mentioned, it does not matter whether or not the entire world lives with a value for it to be universal, just that universally, the value would be beneficial. (Sen 22) That being said, is democracy something that would benefit every person in every country, individually and as whole societies?
Sen has said that democracy is a universal function because of three virtues found in the system: the instrumental value in "enhancing the hearing that people get in expressing and supporting their claims to political attention," the opportunity democracy gives people to learn from one another, and the social and political participation found in democracy, which has intrinsic value. (Sen 20) It seems as though Sen was right on all counts.
First, democracy allows for all to be heard. Be it in a self printed pamphlet, a speech from a corner soapbox, or something as simple as a vote, democracy allows for all to speak. It allows for all to play a role and potentially make a difference in their world. It allows all to matter. Certainly the ability to matter is something that all can benefit from. No man is complete if he lives a life controlled too severely by another. And in bringing about that completion, democracy enriches the lives of all it reaches, with the exception of the handful of unworthy would-be dictators and monarchs that might find themselves out of a job.
Secondly, democracy allows all to learn from one another. Whereas in a dictatorship, the ideas of the dictator become law and are rarely given a chance to be fully questioned by those inside the country, in a democracy all ideas have a chance of making it to the public stage and all ideas have a chance of being enacted. Once an idea has been presented to the public, if it is a decent idea, it has a chance to be accepted by the populace. Of course if it is a bad idea, then the public will have been alerted to how poor of an idea it is by their own sense. The simple presentation of ideas, good and bad, allow for the public to become ever the more educated on the topic, and through discussion and discourse become more aware of the correct ideas. Poor ideas and plans for the future are often ruled out before ever becoming law, simply shot down by an informed public. Even if however, a bad plan of action slips through the cracks in the citizenry's vigilance, through the workings of a free press and a public that is used to being heard when it needs to be, all will learn of the faults in this particular plan and decide against it or it's advocates in upcoming elections. This particular value is found in any free press or nation that allows for free speech, but history has shown us that only democracies favor such freedoms. Dictators and Monarchs are never in a rush to allow the public to discuss the shortcomings of their policies and are indeed never in a rush to allow the public to even learn of the shortcomings of their policies. It is through the benefit of democracy that all are permitted to learn more about their government and their country.
The idea that increased education about one's world is valuable needs no explaining. Though they say ignorance is bliss, living in a country run into the ground by faulty leaders that successfully hide their faults is not blissful by any means.
The third reason presented by Sen explaining why democracy is a universal value, that all benefit from being able to participate in their government and society, is quite similar to the first. Much in the same way that the freedom to be able to speak and be heard politically is valuable to a person, the ability to interact and form their own government is also important. The chance to not be a mindless drone working away for an unquestioned ruler would be beneficial to all, and has proven itself to be the foundation of many prospering nations and active lives. Though perhaps it may seem easier to let your government run itself, allowing for that will only create an accurate sense of helplessness when things take a turn for the worse. To live a complete life, a person must be in control of their own lives. That means being able to affect the policies of their government, not just be effected. When Sen speaks of the intrinsic value of being apart of the government that rules over you, he is right on the money. The worth and sense of value, added to the increased efficiency, effectiveness, and other and pragmatic advantages of having many minds working in the government, make the ability to participate in government beneficial to all that have it. For those three reasons, it is clear that democracy is certainly a universal value.
Clearly democracy has been shown to be a valuable asset to any nation, not only in theory but also in practice. Also it is clear that the benefits of democracy extent to all that are able to choose democracy for their nation. The spread of democracy to most of this world during the last century, specially the last fifty years, is encouraging to see. One can only hope that the universal value of democracy will lead to a universal desire for democracy, and in turn lead to increased democratizing and eventually a world of free peoples living under desired and chosen governments.
Works Cited/ Bibliography
Freedom House report. http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html
Sen, Amartya. "Democracy as a Universal Value." American Educator. American Federation of Teachers. Summer 2000: 16- 22, 51-52
Columns
Dialogues
Essays
Contributors Preserves
Links
Contact
Guestbook
Sign
View View/Old
Quotes
Pictures
Home