Democracy gives us, via our representatives, a say in choosing between complicated and subtle alternatives. To be worthy of having a say, we surely need to have researched these options in depth and come up with robust and considered views. Which of us has the inclination, let alone the time, to do this? Plato took a dim view of democratic citizenry.
He thought that once we have pulled ourselves away from drinking and listening to music, following the latest fads and fashions, we start thinking about politics and bounce up and say whatever enters our heads c-d. The Irish philosopher, Edmund Burke thought that democracy should not be about electing representatives, but about electing someone who we trusted to do our thinking for us.
So should we reject the claim that it takes expertise to run a state? Do we want the person who is most expert at running the state to be the person running the state? Perhaps we do not. An alternative not the only alternative is to think of the person running the state as having the authority to do so because he or she represents our views whatever they happen to be. The captain of a ship or a brain surgeon does not represent anyone; they are simply employed to do a job.
Running a state is a different kind of thing — it requires representation. Nonetheless, that does leave us with his second argument. Indeed, the second argument now seems more pressing. If we, as a democratic citizenry, we are generally uninformed then our representatives are representing generally uninformed views. That does not seem sensible. It has to be said that following this announcement, Burke was voted out in the next election. Although democracy has its problems, both in theory and in practice, one only has to look around the world to realise its advantages.
Among these advantages, and there are many, is that it is a mechanism for getting rid of governments without bloodshed or trauma. Churchill was right; it does seem better than the rest. However, that does not mean it is perfect.
Join us as we count down to the General Election with a step back in time Participating in democratic processes is seen as being a fundamental aspect of citizenship. All pupils need a broad knowledge and understanding of the rights, responsibilities and duties of citizens, as well as an understanding of forms of government. Notions of citizenship have been forged alongside the expansion of the right to vote and the development of our ideas about democracy.
In this free course, Democracy? You think you know? Free course. Do we want politicians - or do we really want performers instead? Ever wondered what it would be like to study philosophy? This free course, Introducing philosophy, will introduce you to the teaching methods employed and the types of activities and assignments you would be asked to undertake should you wish to study philosophy and the human situation.
We invite you to discuss this subject, but remember this is a public forum. However, the power of democracy lies in its ability to gradually change. Complex issues should not be swiftly and unilaterally decided by one ruler; they should be debated upon by large groups of people examining both sides of the issue until the majority is able to find a consensus.
Another common criticism of democracy that proponents of autocracies present is the lack of expertise of voters. While every voter is certainly not an expert on every topic, democracies encourage citizens to learn more about the world around them by creating a mutual responsibility between each voter and his or her nation, and by extension, his or her world. Democracies motivate voters to do research on important candidates and policies, whereas non-democratic governments foster political apathy because one's opinions have no impact on the world around them.
The Varieties of Democracy Report concludes that one third of the world's population lives in a country in which democracy is declining. Even more frighteningly, the Freedom House reports that the global freedom index decreased for the twelfth successive year.
Those are the optimists. Pessimists fear the game is already over, that democratic dominance has ended for good. I fall on the side of the optimists. In the face of the global decline of rule of law, freedom of the press, equal representation, separation of powers and freedom of speech, democracy will be resilient—but only if we fight for it. The time is now to advocate for a more democratic world, and many are taking up the cause.
Countries such as Ethiopia are experiencing democratic reforms as the new prime minister has freed political prisoners and promised more fair elections. Even in democratic nations such as the United States, the effects of political movements such as the Women's March and March For Our Lives, which were only possible because of the right of citizens to peaceably assemble, are evident.
Although democracy is far from a perfect political system, it is undoubtedly an important tool in achieving equality, decreasing conflict, and increasing civic engagement, making it the best available system of government.
Where democracy is a recent growth you get lots of uncontrollable egos, both at voter and leader level - parties and people that are simply not willing to accept electoral defeat or, often, can't even bear to see their side being criticised by a free press. These are so-called 'illiberal democracies', where majoritarian rule often swamps the normal democratic freedoms. They are inherently unstable since there are no real boundaries as to what the political elite might get up to, and usually the rule of law is the first casualty.
The sad fact is that there's no way for a country to become properly democratic except by living as a democracy over time, with all the ups and downs that means. France got its first democratic regime in , but its first stable democracy was achieved only in , and even that was extremely uncertain for a generation. Even in the West, democracy is quite recent - women only got the vote in in Italy and France, and in Switzerland not until Yes, for everyone except children who are innately tyrannical and require dictatorial parents.
Even those who are scornful of democracy and who would fancy their chances if allowed to grab what they could would lose something of real value in a non-democratic society. Few of us value properly the benefits of living in a coherent, integrated society, where everyone has a value because everyone has a vote.
Democracy is not good for everyone. Democratic values are pretty bad news for tyrants, terrorists, corrupt vested interests and all those who seek and abuse power for personal gain or glory. The picture is not too bleak for these groups, however. The corrosion of democracy makes it so much easier for them to survive. More often than not.
Obviously, at times of war and national emergency the practicalities of democracy can be suspended subject to the rule of law. The more subtle question is whether one mode of democracy is suitable for all societies everywhere. On the one hand, it is right to tailor a democracy to reflect contexts such as gender relations, subnational entities, societal structures the role of tribes and families , as well as ethnic make-up.
0コメント