Democracy, Gift or Curse

Democracy by definition means the government by people. That means that all the people should be able to have their say in one way another in everything that affects their lives. Early democracy in Greece practiced by every member of a community having the possibility to enter personally, without mediators, his position on a particular issue into the decision making process. Later modern technologies enable to provide this possibility for increasingly larger and larger communities or through representatives as members of legislative bodies. This second arrangement is then called Representative Democracy, which is practiced by the modern nation.

Representative democracy would be fine if the representatives would really make all their decisions only after consulting their constituencies. In the least, after having a clear idea about the views of their constituents on a particular issue, and trying to accommodate these views as best as possible or postpone the decisions until an overwhelming majority of the constituents would be happy with them.

Unfortunately, a vast majority of countries that call themselves Representative Democracies are not true democracies according to the above definition. Most of them are actually just Elected Dictatorships. People can vote usually only once every four or five years. They do not vote on any issues. They just elect their so called representatives who then until the next elections have no obligations by law and little incentives to base their decisions on individual issues on the wishes on their electorate. They hardly ever bother to consult them on their stands on various issues. Therefore, legislative bodies composed of such "representatives" act in a very dictatorial manner between the elections. This research paper weighs the positive and the negative impacts created by the way of practicing democracy in the world.

The major beauty of the democracy is the participation of the whole population. If you want to hold an election, whole citizen who are over 18 years old (21 in some other countries) are eligible to vote unless for special circumstances. By this all the citizen are enable to participate in the process of choosing their leaders. So the each vote cast by the voter is making an impact how the leaders are chosen. This process is healthy for the growth and the morale of the country but when the people are not well educated and cannot judge their political leader and their qualification and skills on administration, they tend to choose the popular and attractive speaker. These thinks will not fulfill the legacy of the democracy. So leader are getting elected may be not suitable for leading the country.

But there is also some disadvantage when considering the minority population who are living dispersed in a country. Normally the elections are conducted in electoral basis. The candidate who obtains more votes in an electorate get selected for the representative council or the parliament. So it will be impossible for minorities to get elected to the parliament unless they are living in a larger amount within an electorate. And also the treatment of minorities is perhaps the most recognized defect of democracies. Between the mid-1930's and the mid-1970's, the Swedish government forcibly sterilized thousands of women, because of 'mental defects', or simply because they were of 'mixed race'. Yet Sweden has been a model democracy for the entire period. The democracy worked: the problem is that democracy offers no protection to marginalized and despised minorities. The usual answer of democrats is that excesses can be prevented by constitutionally enforced individual rights.

As the supreme power for choosing the leader is with the people, it become their responsibility to choose the better leader for themselves. So they are given a choice to choose the leader of their taste. But the main problem in representative democracy is, after being selected as a representative he or she is not accounted to reply the people who selected them. So after getting elected the representative can work on his personal agenda rather than prioritizing the needs of the people who elected him. There are many example how the leaders change colours after they got elected. In Europe, democratically elected politicians such as Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Umberto Bossi, Gianfranco Fini and Pim Fortuyn are a reminder of democracy's defects. How they act after they capture the power.

Corruption is another aspect where many politicians involve which make the democracy as a standing joke. According to transparency international corruption is the main reason for the slow economic growth rate. There are many corrupted politician in the politics all around the world. In India a central minister of technologies has done a corruption in distributing the 2G spectrum, which is worth more than 20 billion US Dollars. The court has given the verdict against him, but he is still free and engaging in political activities.

In a democratic election process anyone can compete and become a member of legislature or administrative council of a country. Many great leaders who had disadvantaged background become world renowned leaders and they contributed to the development of the country they led. There are two fine examples for this which I would like to mention here. The first one is Dr Mahadhir Mohamed, former Prime Minister of Malaysia. He came from a small town in the northern Malaysia, namely Alor Setar. He did not have any strong backup in the political arena. He was toyed by the leaders of Malaysia. But he eventually became the Prime Minister of Malaysia and as far as I can say the best. He developed the Malaysia in many ways. The other example I would like to mention is Barak Obama, who has been elected as the President of the United States for the second term in running. For a nation which had a history full of racism and abuse against the Red Indians and Negro, it is a miracle for a non-white to capture the most powerful office of the world. Can anyone have thought when Abraham Lincoln passed the bill against the slavery of the black or when Martin Luther King Jr. delivered the speech I have a dream, that an African American can conquer the White House.

But on other hand there is also family dominance in some countries, where the population is not well educated. For example South Asian countries such as SriLanka, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh the family dominance in political arena is more dominant.

Also the ethical values of the outcome of some democratic countries are not satisfactory. In a large ocean there are two neighboring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organizes a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

So 90 million people starve due to the democratic system. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome.

As a conclusion, Democracy works where large population of its people is intelligent and educated. It works where people have perception capacity of the surrounding and the path in which the whole is leading. Unfortunately intelligence and his perception capacity of humanity are declining. He is being educated the wrong way. Thus democracy or the freedom that creator bestowed on humanity is taking it to a death point. Unless the political leader and nations change these type of activities we can say that democracy will be a history in the 22^nd century. 

References

1. Reeve, H. (2002). Democracy in America. Harrisburg: The Pennsylvania State University.
2. Representative democracy. (2010, November). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
3. Re-viewing democracy the positive and negative aspect. (2009, October 26). Retrieved from http://www.oocities.org/science_of_god/reviewing_democracy.htm
4. Treanor, P. (2006, May 13). Why democracy is wrong. Retrieved from web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html

To download pdf file : http://www.mediafire.com/download/58oa3yqb2ul5ey8/Reasearch_Paper_-_Democracy.pdf