“Democracy is a set of Electoral Practices” “Democracy is a set of Values” which statement do

you prefer and why?

Since the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991, there has been a prevalence of democracies all over
the world, not by chance but because they are more appealing than other forms of
government. Firstly, a democracy allows its citizens to actively participate in politics through the
process of electoral votes; secondly, it allows for free and fair competitive elections; and
thirdly, it gives its citizens the right to choose their representatives as well as the right to resist
them through the system of balance. The freedom to participate in political life is a key feature
of democracy which makes it more attractive and distinguishes it from authoritarian
governments.

However, even though democracies are accepted by the vast majority across the globe, many
democracies are imperfect. The main approaches and theories of a democracy are
participation, competition and balance, but these cannot be put into practice so easily or fairly.
Proponents of democracy portray democracy as an ideal system in which citizens are free to
express their opinions and are able to see direct implications of their demands. This may be
true to some extent but democracy is a difficult term to define since the literal meaning is
“power to the people”, yet it is impossible to give power and rights to the people without
setting limitations which is conflictual to the doctrine of democracy. However, what is clear
about democracy is that it is much more complex than a system of electoral practices, it
promotes liberty which cannot be easily calculated and accepted by the masses as every
individual has differing views, thus, a more appropriate statement would be “democracy is a set
of values”.

Theorists of participation believe that there needs to be extensive participation in political life
by all citizens. The first major participation theorist, Jean Jacque Rousseau, said “a good
political system allows its citizens the freedom to participate in political life”. Participationists
try to emulate the classical form of democracy which originated in Athens. The Athenian
version of democracy allowed for all its citizens to gather in an assembly and gave every
individual man (excluding woman and slaves) the opportunity to express their views. How ever
much this extent of participation would be desired by citizens, especially now that we have
universal suffrage rights, it is extremely impractical as the average population of modern cities
are far too large to gather in an amphitheater.

Modern participationists such as Robert Dahl concede that it is necessary to have specialists to
manage political affairs but the issues and solutions of policy making should be proposed and
decided by the people through referendums or elected representatives by the people who
carry out the will of the people. Dahl defends his reasoning for active participation by stating
that everyone has intrinsic equality—the interests of all persons should be
given equal consideration in making collective decisions. People may not be equal in their place
of work or in what resides in their bank accounts, even so, Dahl argues that what unites us is a
common concern for the general good and everyone has equal capabilities of discerning that.
Personal autonomy is another reason for why Dahl favours maximum participation in political
life. Personal autonomy is the idea that no one has the right to make decisions on your behalf
simply because you are the best judge of what you want. Dahl’s arguments are problematic as
intrinsic equality states that there is a known common good to all that can be concluded upon
through rational argument, at the same time personal autonomy states that everyone’s
perception of what is right and wrong varies.

Joseph Schumpeter, a major critic of the participation theory of democracy argues that there is
no such thing as a “uniquely determined common good which can be agreed upon by rational
argument”. The issue is not the lack of concern for the common good but the uncertainty of
ultimate value, which is beyond the range of mere logic”. He states that the concept of the
common good is similar to that of utilitarian theory that states the best action is that which
maximizes utility, this concept has indefinite answers and no real solutions. For instance, he
says “if everyone converts to utilitarianism—health may be desired by all but vaccination and
vasectomy will forever remain a subject on debate”.

Schumpeter believes that decisions such as policy making and how to run a government are
best to be handled by specialists. He does not deny that everyone has equal intrinsic worth or
the same capacities to make rational decisions, he argues that people who do not specialize in
politics have insufficient knowledge or skills to make important decision. A participationists may
say that in modern societies knowledge on any subject can be readily available via internet,
television, books, news papers etc. and so they have no excuse not to participate. However, an
abundance of knowledge does not mean that everyone is inclined to learn or has the resources
required to acquire knowledge.

Anti-participationists advocate limited participation for three reasons —apathy, intolerance and
logistics. Firstly, people are generally apathetic towards things that will not directly effect them,
e.g. a business man would not be keen on a state adopting protectionist policies because his
business is dependent on foreign trade. Even if protectionist policies are beneficial to the
nation, he would vote for a party with more liberal views because problems that are outside of
his sphere of reality are the least of his concerns. Secondly, representatives are determined by
majority votes, this can create a despotic majority who are intolerant of minority rights and
personal autonomy. However, minority rights can be protected by a strong constitution, but is
that enough? No majoritarian party can be unbiased in its policy makings, if that were the case
then there would be no need for separate parties. Thirdly, participation involves more than
casting a vote, it includes listening, deliberating and debating. For every citizen to hear each
others opinion and be able to reflect on that opinion is humanly impossible to execute in a
world consisting of seven billion people.

Participationits argue that referendums are a practical means of extending participation. People
can see direct implications of their demands, they are less complex and easy to comprehend—
as the focus is on one issue—consequently improving judgment of voter. They are also a
convenient way to resolve controversial issues. Counter to this argument is that referendums
may seem to appear simple but many a times they are misrepresented, manipulative and can
become a “conservative device”. Despite the freedom voters have to bring about radical
change, people often stick to the status quo because they are afraid of change. Also the
problem of a majority overpowering a minority still persists with referendums.

Participationits say a good way to overcome minority suppression is to bring change through
activists. Activists usually have sincere agendas to bring about change because they are
(generally) not motivated by reward. They often support beneficial causes i.e. protecting the
rights of woman, children or even animals. However, there is the danger of corrupt politicians
and terrorist groups flourishing through the help of activists or activists promoting irritations
ideas. There is also the misconception that anyone can take on the role of an activists. Studies
have shown that activists involved in interest group activism are relatively well educated and
come from a wealthy background. This last point on the theory of participation leads us to the
second approach of democracy which is competition.

Democracy as competition is the idea that elections are free and fair which in one way means
that anyone who is a citizen of a democratic system has equal opportunity to become president
or prime minister. If the system is strong and can ensure fair elections, then there is a want to
complete for the seat. Nonetheless a free and fair election is possible but not probable in any
democracy. If Max Weber’s theory of legitimate authority is taken into account, it is quite
evident in any society that representative positions are always taken up by either traditional
(leadership is hereditary i.e. monarchial system) or charismatic (leadership based on possessing
an influential or alluring personality) forms of authority. So if any average person wants to
compete they must first earn public recognition. Activist groups work in similar ways.

Running for elections is very difficult and expensive and one would need ample funds and
resources to do so. The notion of free and fair competition is often undermined because of the
uncertainties of human nature. Schumpeter has a very pessimistic view of people’s competence
to make rational decisions and he very eloquently explains how easily people are manipulated
by relating behaviors of the state and citizen to that of a market and consumers. He states that
advertising is such a powerful mechanism that instead of customers (who have the purchasing
power) directing markets, markets are actually the one’s who direct customers. Markets
studying consumer behavior and strategically persuading them to want things they have no
need for. Similar strategies take place in the realm of politics. People are made to think
democracies are good because the privilege of participation makes us feel important regardless
of all the loopholes that exist in the process.

Loyalist groups also create a blockade in competition. For example, in a city where majority
supporters are democrats, it is very unlikely that republicans would win a seat in that city,
hence, results can be predetermined and this discredits the system of competition.

The arguments posed above direct us to think of democracy as an unviable system which is
better left with limited participation. However, the question of why democracies have survived
and multiplied since the end of the cold war is something to consider. The most important
reason for democratic survival is legitimacy— the idea that an authority is only legitimate if it is
accepted by the people. This definition is also valid for authoritarian governments but
democratic legitimacy has a higher degree of legitimacy because it allows citizens to depose
their representatives if they are seen as illegitimate. Democracies therefore need to be actively
supported as well as passively. Although Schumpeter was critical of the idea of power in the
hands of people, he supported participation on the grounds that it can discipline elites by
subjugating them to the process of elections. Discipline can only be achieved if there is a
balance on power. Balance is a very important component of democracy which controls power
abuse. The USA has a system of checks and balances which divides the government into three
branches—executive (president), legislature (congress) and judiciary (supreme court)—if any
one branch uses democratic power to act authoritatively then they will be penalized by the
other branches. Balance in democracy protects the rights of people. The protection of rights is
really at the heart of what a democracy should be. The liberty factor is not present in
authoritarian governments even if they are considered legitimate. It is the ideas of equality and
the constitutional right to express that makes a democracy so successful. Democracy is a
system based on principles and values and it is constantly evolving in comparison to a system
that is limited to electing a representative who bars public opinion while claiming to deliver
what the public wants. Ideally a democracy is a combinations of electoral practices as well as a
set of values, but because it is more qualitative than quantitative in nature it is more
appropriate to define it as a set of values.