Democracy: Definition and Problems
Introduction
Some of the basic concepts of (Western) political philosophy are freedom, equality, rights and justice. With regard to justice, for example, it is important for any social system that it be just. One of the greatest failings of the system of Apartheid in South Africa, for instance, was that it was an unjust system. Another central notion in our thinking about politics is democracy. We think it is important that our system of government be democratic. Also we condemn governments such as Burma and North Korea which are not democratic.
Defining “democracy”
However, what exactly is democracy? More specifically, what are the features of a democratic system which make it (we believe) a good system of government? In the Gettysburg Address Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as “government of the people, for the people and by the people”. Probably the most important of these is government by the people. To explain in what sense democracy is “by” the people is to get to the heart of the concept.
In the notion of democracy there is a distinction between “direct” and “representative” democracy. In a direct democracy citizens vote for laws and policies rather than for candidates. For example, if Australia were a direct democracy a decision such as the sending of troops to Iraq would be made directly by the citizens. The traditional idea of direct democracy required some sort of citizen assembly, but a more modern method would presumably involve electronic decision-making. Since all modern democracies are representative rather than direct I will concentrate on representative democracy. In a representative democracy citizens give up their power of (direct) decision-making to elected candidates. Thus the candidate you elect represents you at a “legislature” i.e. parliament, where decisions are made.
The three ingredients of government by the people are:
- Majority rule.
- Universal franchise.
- Voting
To begin with 3, this is a system which involves citizens selecting the government of their choice. To vote is to express your choice of government.
However, voting presents a problem. For when you vote, what exactly does your vote express? Are you expressing your own preferences or expressing your opinion about the common good? For example, suppose that you vote against a political party which is advocating a Goods and Services Tax (GST). Are you voting against a GST because, suppose, it will mean that you will have to pay more tax, or are you voting against it because you think that it is bad for the economy (i.e. against the common good)? In other words, does your vote express your personal preference about the GST or your belief about how a GST will affect the society at large? Why is this a problem? Because it is not clear what a democratic vote is telling us. Is it giving information about the voters' personal preferences or information about voter opinions regarding the common good? But why does this matter? One reason it matters is that democracy is often criticised on the grounds that most voters do not have the expertise to make judgements about, say, complicated issues regarding national defence or the running of an economy. (This is Plato's criticism as we'll see shortly.)
However, if by voting a voter is expressing what he or she wants then voting is not really a matter of expertise. For example, by voting against a GST I may be simply expressing a personal preference against a GST. I am voting against a GST because it is, I believe, bad for me – it will make me worse off. If that is what my vote is expressing then my economic expertise or lack of it is not as relevant. For I am an expert regarding my own preferences. If, on the other hand, my vote against a GST expresses my opinion that a GST would be bad for the economy then I am making a general judgement about a GST which I may or may not have the expertise to support.
Plato's objection against democracy
Plato rejected democracy as a bad form of government. He compared voting to other skills or “crafts” such as medicine. If you were sick you would go to a doctor – an expert with special training. You would not assemble a crowd in order to get their opinion on what was wrong with you (“ask the audience”). So, Plato argued, why on earth would you expect a collection of voters with no special training or expertise to be able to deliver a rational verdict on something as complicated as the affairs of a nation? Plato believed that voters would not judge rationally but would be guided by impulse, sentiment and prejudice. Another of Plato's examples was the navigation of a ship. Democracy is like trying to navigate a ship by consulting the passengers and ignoring those with the skill of navigation, the captain and crew. Finally, Plato suggested that a group of people (the “Guardians” or “philosopher kings”) be selected and specially trained to rule. The training would be long and arduous and involve such disciplines as Philosophy (of course), Mathematics, Music, Physical Education and Military Studies.
Plato is objecting to 1 and 3 – majority rule and voting. But would the Guardians be any better than an electorate? Could we trust the Guardians? Could they be corrupted? (Who would guard the Guardians?) Would they know better than us what was in our own interests? What happens when the experts disagree? How would the Guardians be appointed and who would appoint them? Does the ambiguity in voting, pointed out above, provide a way of meeting Plato's objection?
Majority rule and minority rights
Another problem arises out of 1, majority rule. What if a majority vote in a democracy results in the violation of minority rights? This is particularly apparent in a society divided along ethnic lines. Consider the following hypothetical example. A country contains three main ethnic groups, A, B and C. About 60% of the population belongs to A, 30% to B and 10% to C. Then at a democratic election where the majority rules and supposing voting strictly along ethnic lines, voters belonging to A could bring in a government committed to favouring A's over B's and C's – A's might be given favoured treatment in employment and housing. The Fijian crisis in 1987 is an example of a situation similar to the hypothetical case.
In the hypothetical situation, haven't all the requirements of democracy been satisfied? There is majority rule, voting and (suppose) universal franchise – everyone of sound mind and over a certain age is allowed to vote. And yet something has gone wrong because the situation described is obviously undesirable. What should we say about this? There seem to be two main alternatives. Firstly, say that the situation is undemocratic because minority rights have been violated. Secondly, say that the situation is perfectly democratic but that being democratic is not the only thing that matters – rights have to be upheld as well.
A related problem arose in Algeria in the early 1990's. An election was held and won by the Islamic opposition party which aimed to establish an Islamic state. Amongst other things, this would have required women to wear Islamic dress and be subject to restrictions flowing from Islamic law. The Government refused to recognize the result of the election, banned the Islamic opposition party and a brutal civil war broke out. (The war lasted several years and over 100 000 people were killed.) Should the Government have accepted the result of the democratic election? What if this had led to many women having their rights violated? There was some suggestion at the time that the opposition, once in power, would have refused to hold further elections. Supposing that there were strong evidence for this, would that have justified the Government annulling the election result?
Some further questions
- To what extent is voting once every three or four years rule “by” the people? To what extent is representative democracy a genuine form of democracy?
- Is direct democracy feasible in modern times? Could decisions be made directly by citizens relatively easily by the use of email?
- How can “tyranny by the majority” be avoided in a democracy?
R. Neurath